EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47874367

So the latest news is that the EU is willing to offer up to a year's extension, on the condition the withdrawal agreement is not re-opened.

Barnier has said the UK should agree to enter into a Customs Union with the EU, and that the EU will not move its negotiating position even if the UK does.

Donald Tusk has said "neither side should feel humiliated but we're very obviously into the humiliation phase of these negotiations.

So the options are remain, or leave. The same two that were at the start. A few non-options added to the mix. These were always the options. They were always going to be the options. Why would the EU allow people to leave the Cartel and do well - just have common standards where sensible and without the overheads. How would that pay all the Final Salaries?

There are a couple of things that continue to be options: we are allowed to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and we are equally allowed to start again the day afterwards. And perhaps this time use the two year period to prepare for an exit rather than hope for the EU to go against their interests.

Or this disaster could be the majority in the Civil Service and the Commons ensuring that eventually we remain. I don't know what is worse - that they engineered this situation or that they didn't.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So the options are remain, or leave. The same two that were at the start. A few non-options added to the mix. These were always the options. They were always going to be the options. Why would the EU allow people to leave the Cartel and do well - just have common standards where sensible and without the overheads. How would that pay all the Final Salaries?

There are a couple of things that continue to be options: we are allowed to unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and we are equally allowed to start again the day afterwards. And perhaps this time use the two year period to prepare for an exit rather than hope for the EU to go against their interests.

Or this disaster could be the majority in the Civil Service and the Commons ensuring that eventually we remain. I don't know what is worse - that they engineered this situation or that they didn't.

It's been made clear that this would be deemed not in good faith, and that if you withdraw article 50 and restart the 2 year process again immediately afterwards, it will resume at this current point, with the 2 year process having already completed, and with the current withdrawal agreement.

If you really are resentful at having ended up where we are, this is the result of your decision to Leave, which you haven't changed. You and all the other Leavers are responsible for bringing us to this point. We Remainers wanted none of this. There was a clear manifesto that we voted for, which was EU membership as at the point of the referendum. Other than May's agreement, which does not have Parliamentary authority (unless you're suggesting the executive does not need Parliamentary authority), or no deal, I haven't seen any manifesto from Leave. Other than promises like 350m/wk for the NHS, which they've disowned. Unless of course you, like Boris Johnson, still want to claim this as a valid argument for Leave.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's been made clear that this would be deemed not in good faith, and that if you withdraw article 50 and restart the 2 year process again immediately afterwards, it will resume at this current point, with the 2 year process having already completed, and with the current withdrawal agreement.

If you really are resentful at having ended up where we are, this is the result of your decision to Leave, which you haven't changed. You and all the other Leavers are responsible for bringing us to this point. We Remainers wanted none of this. There was a clear manifesto that we voted for, which was EU membership as at the point of the referendum. Other than May's agreement, which does not have Parliamentary authority (unless you're suggesting the executive does not need Parliamentary authority), or no deal, I haven't seen any manifesto from Leave. Other than promises like 350m/wk for the NHS, which they've disowned. Unless of course you, like Boris Johnson, still want to claim this as a valid argument for Leave.

When people start using terms "good faith" you know they've got no legal argument.

So the process can be ended. Another one can begin. Nothing in the law states that this can not be done.

As I have said before, those who since the 1970's have allowed the EEC to become the current EU without any of the People's votes that are now not being followed are responsible for the situation. Own the mess that has been created over 30 years. No, rectifying 30 years of mission creep with no mandate will not be quick or easy to rectify.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

When people start using terms "good faith" you know they've got no legal argument.

So the process can be ended. Another one can begin. Nothing in the law states that this can not be done.

As I have said before, those who since the 1970's have allowed the EEC to become the current EU without any of the People's votes that are now not being followed are responsible for the situation. Own the mess that has been created over 30 years. No, rectifying 30 years of mission creep with no mandate will not be quick or easy to rectify.

I do own that mess. Except I don't call it a mess. I call it a working entity. Some bits not working as well as others. But overall, I was happy with the whole thing, and I'd have the whole thing again, as at the point of the referendum. Now that I own responsibility for our EU membership as was, will you own responsibility for the results of Leave, as you voted for?

BTW, so does this mean you support revoke? Right now, legally, the default is no deal, as article 50 sets us a leave date but we haven't modified the conditions on which we leave. If we want an extension, the EU 27 have to all agree. Any single disagreement, and it's back to no deal as the default. That I didn't vote for. That you voted for.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I do own that mess. Except I don't call it a mess. I call it a working entity. Some bits not working as well as others. But overall, I was happy with the whole thing, and I'd have the whole thing again, as at the point of the referendum. Now that I own responsibility for our EU membership as was, will you own responsibility for the results of Leave, as you voted for?

BTW, so does this mean you support revoke? Right now, legally, the default is no deal, as article 50 sets us a leave date but we haven't modified the conditions on which we leave. If we want an extension, the EU 27 have to all agree. Any single disagreement, and it's back to no deal as the default. That I didn't vote for. That you voted for.

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

The Greeks are in trouble because they have no working entities themselves and their working entities were allowed to retire too soon, etc.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

A "Working Entity"?

The Greeks might not agree.

The Russians might agree.

Did spend a pretty penny to throw spanners in the works at every opportunity, including Brexit.

Putin's government is free to do as it wishes on most such issues. Putin plays the international politics game with old school rules.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Putin's government is free to do as it wishes on most such issues. Putin plays the international politics game with old school rules.

In the past, it was only the far left who did the bidding of Russia. Nowadays, it's the Eurosceptics, encompassing the far left and much of the right. To Eurosceptics, everything European is bad, and everything anti-European is good. Hence much of the argument from Brexiteers is how much harm they can do to the EU, and anyone, even Russia and China, who is anti-European, is deemed a friend. Rees Mogg, the head of the anti-European group, has promised to make the EU regret not kicking out the UK, by using all the UK's powers within the EU to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. Remember the complaints from Brexiteers that they wanted out of the EU because they had no say.

And among the lower ranking Brexiteers, the voters rather than the politicians, they still blame, not the Brexiteer politicians who made them promises with no thought of keeping them, but those who are trying to make things work. Even when both groups are voting against May, it's the Remainers whom they blame, not the hardcore Brexiteers who are voting the same way. And as you can see, while I and other Remainers are happy to take responsibility for the EU being as imperfect as it is and still voting for it, Brexiteers still claim that the post-victory situation is none of their responsibility. They didn't vote for this, they say.

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In the past, it was only the far left who did the bidding of Russia. Nowadays, it's the Eurosceptics, encompassing the far left and much of the right. To Eurosceptics, everything European is bad, and everything anti-European is good. Hence much of the argument from Brexiteers is how much harm they can do to the EU, and anyone, even Russia and China, who is anti-European, is deemed a friend. Rees Mogg, the head of the anti-European group, has promised to make the EU regret not kicking out the UK, by using all the UK's powers within the EU to be as much of a pain in the butt as possible. Remember the complaints from Brexiteers that they wanted out of the EU because they had no say.

And among the lower ranking Brexiteers, the voters rather than the politicians, they still blame, not the Brexiteer politicians who made them promises with no thought of keeping them, but those who are trying to make things work. Even when both groups are voting against May, it's the Remainers whom they blame, not the hardcore Brexiteers who are voting the same way. And as you can see, while I and other Remainers are happy to take responsibility for the EU being as imperfect as it is and still voting for it, Brexiteers still claim that the post-victory situation is none of their responsibility. They didn't vote for this, they say.

You really are rather amusing - with your certainty of what other people think.

Perhaps you could say to some Euroskeptics rather than pretend that every single one is the same.

Oh, and lest we forget, Italy is signing up to the Chinese trade initiative and the Chinese have already heavily invested in Greece (which might be why Greece is so friendly to China). See? I can cope with a reality that all countries in the EU are different.

It isn't supposed to be "victory" or "defeat". It was supposed to be leaving the EU. We did not win, and they have not lost. I would hope that we can work with the EU in the future. They should be our close friends - just like the USA is a close friend (and I really can't be bothered to list all the other close friends the UK has which have nothing to do with the EU) - without having their laws imposed. Leaving would be... imperfect but I am happy to deal with that.

Hopefully the pitiful histrionics and posturing will cease soon on all sides. I never have linked Remainers with Nazis and I hope that those senior officials in the EU might grow up and stating that those who wished to leave will go to hell.

Given the time that has been wasted (and there was nothing on the vote that stated "and the Government hereby will pretend to negotiate for two years and get nowhere) best to legally withdraw Article 50, and then legally restart and then use the next two years to prepare for the no-deal leave the EU always promised and build from there.

I heard a report on NPR today suggesting that support for the EU among EU member-states has increased during this Brexit process. Watching the UK twist in the breeze seems to be having a cautionary effect on the electorates of the other member states. I suspect that support to emulate the UK in its effort to leave is waning.

So maybe the EU leadership is getting what it needs most, whether or not that is the stated views of EU leadership?

After this example, who would want to follow along? And, if the leave effort now fails and the UK returns (likely after the next EU elections during this latest "extension"), then the EU is more or less solidified as the dominant player in European politics -- not the sole voice of Europe by any means, but the first voice.

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I heard a report on NPR today suggesting that support for the EU among EU member-states has increased during this Brexit process. Watching the UK twist in the breeze seems to be having a cautionary effect on the electorates of the other member states. I suspect that support to emulate the UK in its effort to leave is waning.

So maybe the EU leadership is getting what it needs most, whether or not that is the stated views of EU leadership?

After this example, who would want to follow along? And, if the leave effort now fails and the UK returns (likely after the next EU elections during this latest "extension"), then the EU is more or less solidified as the dominant player in European politics -- not the sole voice of Europe by any means, but the first voice.

In the short term you may be correct.

However, what will this do to Europe in the long term?

If Brexit fails the UK will experience a power "Downgrade" similar to the one after Suez that was inflicted by the US - the UK went from World Super Power to Great Power. If Brexit "fails" and Article 50 is revoked then the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany. Such a fate may well dissuade others from following the example of the UK's electorate, but this will not actually reduce resentment at the practices and corruption of the EU.

If the EU humiliates the UK and forces us to remain part of the EU - as looks likely - then the people of the UK will remain resentful for the foreseeable future. Support for "Remain" comes from a fear that leaving will cause political and economic collapse, not a swing in favour of the EU's political settlement.

The EU has made it clear it won't renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement which means the only purpose of an extension is to give the UK's Parliament more time to change its mind, despite the fact that the UK Parliament cannot vote again on the agreement unless Parliament is prorogued. If May tries to prorogue Parliament merely to pass the agreement there will probably be a General Election. If the EU gives the UK an extension until December that will allow another vote of No Confidence in her

All of this assumes the UK's Parliament will accept the EU's conditions. If it does not the EU will either have to accept actual renegotiation or allow No Deal and the dreaded Hard Border.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If Brexit fails the UK will experience a power "Downgrade" similar to the one after Suez that was inflicted by the US - the UK went from World Super Power to Great Power. If Brexit "fails" and Article 50 is revoked then the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany.

Might this be the very essence where your brexit support stems from? Sounds bit like The Ghost dancing Lakota at Wounded Knee. "If we dance hard enough everything turn back like it was before." We all know how well that turned out. Now by trashing your own economy with Brexit, you are yourselves creating this drop of influence.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Such a fate may well dissuade others from following the example of the UK's electorate, but this will not actually reduce resentment at the practices and corruption of the EU.

Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

If the EU humiliates the UK and forces us to remain part of the EU - as looks likely - then the people of the UK will remain resentful for the foreseeable future. Support for "Remain" comes from a fear that leaving will cause political and economic collapse, not a swing in favour of the EU's political settlement.

The EU has made it clear it won't renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement which means the only purpose of an extension is to give the UK's Parliament more time to change its mind, despite the fact that the UK Parliament cannot vote again on the agreement unless Parliament is prorogued. If May tries to prorogue Parliament merely to pass the agreement there will probably be a General Election. If the EU gives the UK an extension until December that will allow another vote of No Confidence in her

All of this assumes the UK's Parliament will accept the EU's conditions. If it does not the EU will either have to accept actual renegotiation or allow No Deal and the dreaded Hard Border.

How is EU is forcing you to stay?It is your own parliament that is not accepting any of the choices brought to it by your own Government.

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Might this be the very essence where your brexit support stems from? Sounds bit like The Ghost dancing Lakota at Wounded Knee. "If we dance hard enough everything turn back like it was before." We all know how well that turned out. Now by trashing your own economy with Brexit, you are yourselves creating this drop of influence.

Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?

How is EU is forcing you to stay?It is your own parliament that is not accepting any of the choices brought to it by your own Government.

EU politicians who have voted against May's deal.



UK politicians who have voted against May's deal.

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
David Davis
Iain Duncan Smith
Mark Francois
Boris Johnson
Daniel Kawczynski
Esther McVey
Dominic Raab
John Redwood
Jacob Rees Mogg

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You really are rather amusing - with your certainty of what other people think.

Perhaps you could say to some Euroskeptics rather than pretend that every single one is the same.

Oh, and lest we forget, Italy is signing up to the Chinese trade initiative and the Chinese have already heavily invested in Greece (which might be why Greece is so friendly to China). See? I can cope with a reality that all countries in the EU are different.

It isn't supposed to be "victory" or "defeat". It was supposed to be leaving the EU. We did not win, and they have not lost. I would hope that we can work with the EU in the future. They should be our close friends - just like the USA is a close friend (and I really can't be bothered to list all the other close friends the UK has which have nothing to do with the EU) - without having their laws imposed. Leaving would be... imperfect but I am happy to deal with that.

Hopefully the pitiful histrionics and posturing will cease soon on all sides. I never have linked Remainers with Nazis and I hope that those senior officials in the EU might grow up and stating that those who wished to leave will go to hell.

Given the time that has been wasted (and there was nothing on the vote that stated "and the Government hereby will pretend to negotiate for two years and get nowhere) best to legally withdraw Article 50, and then legally restart and then use the next two years to prepare for the no-deal leave the EU always promised and build from there.

When did the EU promise this?

It has nothing to do with economics it is and always was about who governs the UK.

Care to elaborate concerning the EU corruption?

Christ on a bike where to begin!

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

It has nothing to do with economics it is and always was about who governs the UK.

Christ on a bike where to begin!

So who does govern the UK? You've already criticised Parliament for betraying the British people because they refused to pass May's deal to facilitate her Brexit. Should they have passed it, in your view? Don't dance around it with memes. Give your honest opinion on whether or not Parliament should have passed it. Or even whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Christ on a bike where to begin!

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

The EU Accounts -

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

Prior to 2007 The EU’s Court of Auditors described the EU's budget as "not entirely" fair and accurate. Between 1994 and 2015 the Court described the payments as not being "free from material error" which is to say there were significant accounting errors.

I.e. money was being paid for things that didn't exist and the process itself was being managed in an unfair (corrupt) way.

Since 2007 the Court has described the accounts as fair and accurate but prior to 2016 (the year the UK voted to leave) there remained significant material inaccuracies.

The Accounts didn't get a clean bill of health in 2016, either, they were just "mostly" accurate.

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecad...ts-2017-en.pdf

The most recent report, for 2017, indicates that there continue to be material "errors" in reimbursement-based payments, though this was less than in 2016.

In essence - the EU pays for things people claim they are entitled to be reimbursed on without the attending paperwork.

This is, fundamentally, corruption.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The EU Accounts -

https://fullfact.org/europe/did-audi...ign-eu-budget/

Prior to 2007 The EU’s Court of Auditors described the EU's budget as "not entirely" fair and accurate. Between 1994 and 2015 the Court described the payments as not being "free from material error" which is to say there were significant accounting errors.

I.e. money was being paid for things that didn't exist and the process itself was being managed in an unfair (corrupt) way.

Since 2007 the Court has described the accounts as fair and accurate but prior to 2016 (the year the UK voted to leave) there remained significant material inaccuracies.

The Accounts didn't get a clean bill of health in 2016, either, they were just "mostly" accurate.

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecad...ts-2017-en.pdf

The most recent report, for 2017, indicates that there continue to be material "errors" in reimbursement-based payments, though this was less than in 2016.

In essence - the EU pays for things people claim they are entitled to be reimbursed on without the attending paperwork.

This is, fundamentally, corruption.

And now that we are out of the EU, we can be ruled by the incorruptible Westminster. Have you seen some of the sidelines our MPs get up to? Eg. John Redwood giving financial advice to his clients not to invest in the UK because the UK economy post-Brexit is likely to be dodgy. And then pushing for no deal. Or Rees Mogg expanding investments inside the EU because there is likely to be greater stability within the EU than in the UK post-Brexit. Why are European politicians doing dodgy stuff to their money such an important issue with you, but UK politicians screwing the UK over such a non-issue?

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Give your honest opinion on.... whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

Originally Posted by Furunculus

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

What authority does this government have? Please explain on what authority the government would be doing the above that you suggest they do.

Originally Posted by Furunculus

we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum?

Excuse me, but the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament, which I remind you is constituted of Both Houses and the Sovereign.

The Government led by Theresa May has never acted on behalf of Parliament, that is why we are in this mess. Parliament cannot reasonably be expected to pass the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form and the EU's insistence that it should borders on being deliberately pernicious.

Extension until 31/10/2019.

At this rate, with the extension until October, I fully expect it to be delayed AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

the UK will be reduced to Regional Power behind France and Germany.

It's funny how you mention the status quo as a potential future option.

Originally Posted by Husar

It's funny how you mention the status quo as a potential future option.

Zing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Pannonian

What authority does this government have? Please explain on what authority the government would be doing the above that you suggest they do.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Excuse me, but the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament, which I remind you is constituted of Both Houses and the Sovereign.

The Government led by Theresa May has never acted on behalf of Parliament, that is why we are in this mess.

As PFH has said, the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament. That it has not, because it buckled on the question of meaningful votes is in good measure why we are in this knot.

We saw exactly this point with the outrage over the initial extension, where the leave date became the 12th of april regardless of the fact that parliament had put "31st of March" into law.

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Parliament cannot reasonably be expected to pass the Withdrawal Agreement in its current form and the EU's insistence that it should borders on being deliberately pernicious.

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.