Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[Spijed]

So the rumours doing rounds now is BJ. Has done a deal with the EU which he will reveal in the next couple of days.
As part of his deal the EU have agreed to a clause which prevents them agreeing to an extension of parliament rejects his deal.

Check mate!!!!

This seems to be the article in the Times:

"The prime minister will publish a legal text spelling out his proposed alternative to the Irish backstop within days as negotiations with Brussels enter a crucial period. He has privately made clear that an agreement should include a commitment from the other 27 EU nations that they will not allow another Brexit delay.

r Johnson’s intention is to confront MPs in parliament with a binary choice of agreeing the revised deal or ensuring that Britain falls out of the EU without agreement at the end of the month. If he succeeds, the prime minister will, in effect, nullify the Benn act, which compels him to seek an extension to Article 50.

Senior ministers are bracing themselves for what one has described as a “moment of truth” for Dublin, Paris, Berlin and Brussels when Britain tables its text on proposals for the Irish border after Brexit. Some were expressing concern last night that the Republic of Ireland seemed to be cooling on the solution, which is understood to include limited checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain.

If, however, Brussels chooses to engage with the British proposals, ministers expect intense negotiations leading up to the European Council in a little more than a fortnight. Should the EU agree to both a new deal and to rule out an extension, the parliamentary arithmetic will be radically altered.

Mr Johnson’s request will provoke a battle with Remain MPs for the ear of European leaders including Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Macron. France, which was sceptical over the value of the last delay, is understood to have been consulted by the architects of the Benn act over its terms. The prime minister has been warned by members of his cabinet that he will be forced to delay Brexit unless he can get a deal with the EU.

One minister said that Mr Johnson was now facing a straight choice of “deal or delay” and could not leave without a deal on October 31. Another minister involved in “war-gaming” attempts to circumvent the act, which forces Mr Johnson to request a Brexit delay if he cannot strike a deal, conceded that they were unlikely to be successful. “The law is the law,” the minister said. “We’ve looked at the options here but in truth there is no foolproof way out here.”

Ministers expect Mr Johnson to “take it to the max” to force Britain to leave the EU at the end of this month. The prime minister has told aides that he is prepared to give evidence in person at any Supreme Court hearing into the legality of the Benn act, which he has called “the surrender act”. One minister said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew.”

[KateR]

I think we all do really, but that time is fast approaching.

Not sure about "fast approaching" Seems to have taken forever to get here, and seeing lot's of posts here today the next GE, which I expected this year and said it would happen this year long since, when May was the leader, appears it might not happen now. I had also stated that the EU would agree to another extension but longer than a year, well a year minimum, perhaps 2.

We keep hearing about the backstop and technology (not available today but....) so maybe that is what's needed, status quo for 2 years, develop your plans and present, calm everyone down. Of course not everyone, but I could certainly see this parliament agreeing to this in a heartbeat, but I would assume there will be a GE in that timeframe and the results of that would have a direct effect.

For me the burning question of today is "Do the opposition parties (or enough of them) want a GE this year after getting any form of extension, that one I suppose we will know relatively soon.

Assuming BJ asks for the 3 month extension what do the present parliament do if it is a response that is essentially 2 years or no extension, again I suppose we will know soon enough, but do you think some of those backing a 3 month extension who are for leave but not no deal will change there minds?

I "feel" the EU is fat and happy, sat in the drivers seat laughing knowing that this parliament will never do a no deal and therefore can basically call the tune and make the UK dance to there tune, I am not enjoying this feeling at all.

[Devils_Advocate]

We keep hearing about the backstop and technology (not available today but....) so maybe that is what's needed, status quo for 2 years, develop your plans and present, calm everyone down. Of course not everyone, but I could certainly see this parliament agreeing to this in a heartbeat, but I would assume there will be a GE in that timeframe and the results of that would have a direct effect.

But is this a narrative that is subtly being changed. It seems to be going from borderless frictionless trade is not a problem and the technology is nearly ready to some kind of hard border was always a reality and we just have to find the best way to minimise the impacts.

Give it a few weeks and they'll be denying that not needing border checks was ever in their plan just like they have done with things like some of these claims

"If we vote to leave we can maintain free trade." (Michael Gove, 8/5/16)

"As a minimum, we will seek continued access on free-trade terms to the single market." (UKIP manifesto)

"There will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market." (Boris Johnson, 26/5/16)

"FACT: After we Vote Leave, British businesses will trade freely with the EU." (Vote Leave website)

[Mala591]

Apparently 95% of North / South trade in Ireland is already covered by the 'trusted traders' scheme which is an electronic system for dealing with vat, differing exchange rates etc. The governments plan seems to be to include customs information within this electronic system. Obviously there will need to be a system to cover the other 5% of trade but surely these companies can be brought into the scheme during the implementation phase.

http://www2.kghcustoms.com/brexitblog/h ... eu-borders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backstop problem solved. Now let's move on to the free trade agreement discussions...

[JohnMcGreal]

Apparently 95% of North / South trade in Ireland is already covered by the 'trusted traders' scheme which is an electronic system for dealing with vat, differing exchange rates etc. The governments plan seems to be to include customs information within this electronic system. Obviously there will need to be a system to cover the other 5% of trade but surely these companies can be brought into the scheme during the implementation phase.

http://www2.kghcustoms.com/brexitblog/h ... eu-borders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backstop problem solved. Now let's move on to the free trade agreement discussions...

If those claims are true, then the backstop will never need to come into force. So we can sign the Withdrawal Agreement and be on our way. Right?

[KateR]

I have a bad feeling that the backstop and the Irish border will not be the only stumbling block and assuming it will be solved we will then move on to another issue which prevents parliament from accepting "the deal".

I must admit at the very simplistic level and 35,000 foot level I find it difficult to understand why there needs to be a border if both sides as they say do not want one. I do however understand the fundament's of why some are blocking yet why can not trade as it has been for say the last 3 of 5 years be looked at and that a similar amount of trade be allowed to pass without tariffs on the basis of we keep the same law basically that we have with the EU for all things, particularly agriculture and animals. I feel things like chlorinated chicken and other similar goods could be excluded from NI. Obviously the trust issue will be the big one and random stops/checks could occur and the contents would need to match the electronic form of identifying goods passing through the imaginary border of where/how it is today.

I do understand this is to difficult for both sides and assurances need to be in place, and that NI needs to agree to being treated slightly different, plus the remainder of the UK would need checks on goods traveling to NI bound for Ireland. Additionally NI would be banned as a route to transport good to mainland Europe from the UK, one which I believe is sensible but would like to hear any dissent on this issue.

[keith1879]

Apparently 95% of North / South trade in Ireland is already covered by the 'trusted traders' scheme which is an electronic system for dealing with vat, differing exchange rates etc. The governments plan seems to be to include customs information within this electronic system. Obviously there will need to be a system to cover the other 5% of trade but surely these companies can be brought into the scheme during the implementation phase.

http://www2.kghcustoms.com/brexitblog/h ... eu-borders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backstop problem solved. Now let's move on to the free trade agreement discussions...

If we leave the EU Customs Union then from that point onwards there will be a new reason to transport certain types of goods across the border (to avoid customs duty in the high tariff area). How do you stop that? I can't see any magic solution that doesn't involve checks. "Trusted Traders" scheemes don't cut it. Fundamentally all the technology solutions are directed at proving that certain items are in the truck. Any customs check however is more interested in what is in the truck but isn't on the list (ie is being smuggled).

[HieronymousBoschHobs]

Which idiot suggested "Labour aren't calling a GE because they're scared of losing!"










Labour aren't calling a GE because they're scared of winning!.......

THIS IS GREAT BANTER!

[Lancasterclaret]

Apparently 95% of North / South trade in Ireland is already covered by the 'trusted traders' scheme which is an electronic system for dealing with vat, differing exchange rates etc. The governments plan seems to be to include customs information within this electronic system. Obviously there will need to be a system to cover the other 5% of trade but surely these companies can be brought into the scheme during the implementation phase.

http://www2.kghcustoms.com/brexitblog/h ... eu-borders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Backstop problem solved. Now let's move on to the free trade agreement discussions...

Thats been on here before. Its a fascinating read but I think the tech isn't there yet and its based on the Norway/Sweden border (again, I think)

There, you have a lot less crossing points but still border posts and a bilateral agreement where both nations customs officers can operate up to a certain number of km inside each other border (again, going from memory here so might not be exact)

There are rather obvious issues there straightaway with the ROI/UK border.

[Lancasterclaret]

This seems to be the article in the Times:

"The prime minister will publish a legal text spelling out his proposed alternative to the Irish backstop within days as negotiations with Brussels enter a crucial period. He has privately made clear that an agreement should include a commitment from the other 27 EU nations that they will not allow another Brexit delay.

r Johnson’s intention is to confront MPs in parliament with a binary choice of agreeing the revised deal or ensuring that Britain falls out of the EU without agreement at the end of the month. If he succeeds, the prime minister will, in effect, nullify the Benn act, which compels him to seek an extension to Article 50.

Senior ministers are bracing themselves for what one has described as a “moment of truth” for Dublin, Paris, Berlin and Brussels when Britain tables its text on proposals for the Irish border after Brexit. Some were expressing concern last night that the Republic of Ireland seemed to be cooling on the solution, which is understood to include limited checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain.

If, however, Brussels chooses to engage with the British proposals, ministers expect intense negotiations leading up to the European Council in a little more than a fortnight. Should the EU agree to both a new deal and to rule out an extension, the parliamentary arithmetic will be radically altered.

Mr Johnson’s request will provoke a battle with Remain MPs for the ear of European leaders including Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Macron. France, which was sceptical over the value of the last delay, is understood to have been consulted by the architects of the Benn act over its terms. The prime minister has been warned by members of his cabinet that he will be forced to delay Brexit unless he can get a deal with the EU.

One minister said that Mr Johnson was now facing a straight choice of “deal or delay” and could not leave without a deal on October 31. Another minister involved in “war-gaming” attempts to circumvent the act, which forces Mr Johnson to request a Brexit delay if he cannot strike a deal, conceded that they were unlikely to be successful. “The law is the law,” the minister said. “We’ve looked at the options here but in truth there is no foolproof way out here.”

Ministers expect Mr Johnson to “take it to the max” to force Britain to leave the EU at the end of this month. The prime minister has told aides that he is prepared to give evidence in person at any Supreme Court hearing into the legality of the Benn act, which he has called “the surrender act”. One minister said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew.”

Surely that would involve the EU essentially involving itself in the UK internal affairs and helping bypass Parliament and UK Law?

Not only can I not see the EU doing that, but any self respecting brexiteer will have real trouble looking in the mirror in the morning if we leave only because the EU over ruled Parliament and UK law?

[Chip Harrison]

This seems to be the article in the Times:

"The prime minister will publish a legal text spelling out his proposed alternative to the Irish backstop within days as negotiations with Brussels enter a crucial period. He has privately made clear that an agreement should include a commitment from the other 27 EU nations that they will not allow another Brexit delay.

r Johnson’s intention is to confront MPs in parliament with a binary choice of agreeing the revised deal or ensuring that Britain falls out of the EU without agreement at the end of the month. If he succeeds, the prime minister will, in effect, nullify the Benn act, which compels him to seek an extension to Article 50.

Senior ministers are bracing themselves for what one has described as a “moment of truth” for Dublin, Paris, Berlin and Brussels when Britain tables its text on proposals for the Irish border after Brexit. Some were expressing concern last night that the Republic of Ireland seemed to be cooling on the solution, which is understood to include limited checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain.

If, however, Brussels chooses to engage with the British proposals, ministers expect intense negotiations leading up to the European Council in a little more than a fortnight. Should the EU agree to both a new deal and to rule out an extension, the parliamentary arithmetic will be radically altered.

Mr Johnson’s request will provoke a battle with Remain MPs for the ear of European leaders including Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Macron. France, which was sceptical over the value of the last delay, is understood to have been consulted by the architects of the Benn act over its terms. The prime minister has been warned by members of his cabinet that he will be forced to delay Brexit unless he can get a deal with the EU.

One minister said that Mr Johnson was now facing a straight choice of “deal or delay” and could not leave without a deal on October 31. Another minister involved in “war-gaming” attempts to circumvent the act, which forces Mr Johnson to request a Brexit delay if he cannot strike a deal, conceded that they were unlikely to be successful. “The law is the law,” the minister said. “We’ve looked at the options here but in truth there is no foolproof way out here.”

Ministers expect Mr Johnson to “take it to the max” to force Britain to leave the EU at the end of this month. The prime minister has told aides that he is prepared to give evidence in person at any Supreme Court hearing into the legality of the Benn act, which he has called “the surrender act”. One minister said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew.”

What do you mean by, "this seems to be the article in the Times"? Is it or isn't it from the Times?

[Spijed]

What do you mean by, "this seems to be the article in the Times"? Is it or isn't it from the Times?

It was taken from another site that suggested it was the Times article.

[Spijed]

Priti Patel says the Conservatives are the party of Law and Order....

Meanwhile...

A senior Tory MP is expelled from the conference over 'totally unacceptable' behaviour'.

[KateR]

Priti Patel says the Conservatives are the party of Law and Order....

Meanwhile...

A senior Tory MP is expelled from the conference over 'totally unacceptable' behaviour'.

Not really what she said though is it?

Storm in a teacup, but why not blow it out of proportion!

Fake news at the best the way you have written it, and no correlation except to try to put a bad light on the Tories as a whole.

[fidelcastro]

Not really what she said though is it?

Storm in a teacup, but why not blow it out of proportion!

Fake news at the best the way you have written it, and no correlation except to try to put a bad light on the Tories as a whole.

They don't need any help on that score!

[KateR]

They don't need any help on that score!

both main parties do not need help regarding that, nor do others such as the SNP in my opinion, however I will not say all parties.

[fidelcastro]

both main parties do not need help regarding that, nor do others such as the SNP in my opinion, however I will not say all parties.

The Tories have simply become a Brexit party Mark ll. There is no room for any moderate thinking there now.

Still, that will appeal to many people, because we all know that Brexit was everything anyone ever talked about prior to the referendum, right?

[Lowbankclaret]

This seems to be the article in the Times:

"The prime minister will publish a legal text spelling out his proposed alternative to the Irish backstop within days as negotiations with Brussels enter a crucial period. He has privately made clear that an agreement should include a commitment from the other 27 EU nations that they will not allow another Brexit delay.

r Johnson’s intention is to confront MPs in parliament with a binary choice of agreeing the revised deal or ensuring that Britain falls out of the EU without agreement at the end of the month. If he succeeds, the prime minister will, in effect, nullify the Benn act, which compels him to seek an extension to Article 50.

Senior ministers are bracing themselves for what one has described as a “moment of truth” for Dublin, Paris, Berlin and Brussels when Britain tables its text on proposals for the Irish border after Brexit. Some were expressing concern last night that the Republic of Ireland seemed to be cooling on the solution, which is understood to include limited checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain.

If, however, Brussels chooses to engage with the British proposals, ministers expect intense negotiations leading up to the European Council in a little more than a fortnight. Should the EU agree to both a new deal and to rule out an extension, the parliamentary arithmetic will be radically altered.

Mr Johnson’s request will provoke a battle with Remain MPs for the ear of European leaders including Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and President Macron. France, which was sceptical over the value of the last delay, is understood to have been consulted by the architects of the Benn act over its terms. The prime minister has been warned by members of his cabinet that he will be forced to delay Brexit unless he can get a deal with the EU.

One minister said that Mr Johnson was now facing a straight choice of “deal or delay” and could not leave without a deal on October 31. Another minister involved in “war-gaming” attempts to circumvent the act, which forces Mr Johnson to request a Brexit delay if he cannot strike a deal, conceded that they were unlikely to be successful. “The law is the law,” the minister said. “We’ve looked at the options here but in truth there is no foolproof way out here.”

Ministers expect Mr Johnson to “take it to the max” to force Britain to leave the EU at the end of this month. The prime minister has told aides that he is prepared to give evidence in person at any Supreme Court hearing into the legality of the Benn act, which he has called “the surrender act”. One minister said: “The important thing is that Boris shows he is fighting this with every sinew.”

That was it, I didn’t think of that when I did scenarios earlier in the week.

If he pulled that off, that would really **** off the remainer MP’s.

[AndyClaret]

A time-limit to the backstop ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... p-k181x3fh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Devils_Advocate]

Johnson making a cock of himself again
https://twitter.com/i/status/1179039613316259840

[Lancasterclaret]

A time-limit to the backstop ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... p-k181x3fh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No problem with a time limit, as long as its there to protect both the UK and the EU and the UK have serious proposals to replace it.

They haven't yet, which is why the EU haven't been flexible on it.

[Lowbankclaret]

I thought, as a member of the Brexit party, any deal is seen as a complete disaster, whatever that may be?

Nigel Farage has said it has to be 'No-deal' come what may.

I do but I am going to watch the others parties start to panic.

Swinson, ruled out backing Corbyn as an interim PM.

She might have a rethink if she realises we out on the 31st which could be by no deal..

This is going to be a very interesting month.

[KateR]

The Tories have simply become a Brexit party Mark ll. There is no room for any moderate thinking there now.

Still, that will appeal to many people, because we all know that Brexit was everything anyone ever talked about prior to the referendum, right?

Am not sure what point you are trying to make??

I believe rhetoric on both sides was ratcheted up recently and hope it will be dialed back once full parliament is resumed, however regardless which ever party was in opposition they disagreed and tried to pour scorn on the sitting government regardless of what they were trying to implement. Even if it was what they had been saying, it was never received in good faith, it was always falling short of what the opposition thought in an attempt to prejudice the people just to try and score points.

It should appeal to all people regardless if it is a deal that the EU & the government jointly propose, but I suspect it wont and it will be the remain bandwagon that tries to block it. Both sides want at the extreme sides a perfect deal that suits there thoughts regardless of what it does to the UK or the EU, it is up to the moderates in the middle to actually move from those positions so this can move to the next phase and show real progress.

Lancaster appears to have moved somewhat to the middle yet the rest of the staunch remain crowd on here have not. Note: I have not mentioned leave people moving, mainly down to the fact that I believe we had a mandate to leave but I do support the "not to leave at any cost" mantra.

[Lancasterclaret]

I do but I am going to watch the others parties start to panic.

Swinson, ruled out backing Corbyn as an interim PM.

She might have a rethink if she realises we out on the 31st which could be by no deal..

This is going to be a very interesting month.

Swinson knows what she is doing.

No way the rebel Tories will accept Corbyn, so its immaterial anyway whether the Lib Dems do or not.

Will force Labour to think about it, especially as the position is likely to be toxic for anyone, so an end of an era MP is a much more likely candidate.

But a very interesting month

[Lancasterclaret]

Am not sure what point you are trying to make??

I believe rhetoric on both sides was ratcheted up recently and hope it will be dialed back once full parliament is resumed, however regardless which ever party was in opposition they disagreed and tried to pour scorn on the sitting government regardless of what they were trying to implement. Even if it was what they had been saying, it was never received in good faith, it was always falling short of what the opposition thought in an attempt to prejudice the people just to try and score points.

It should appeal to all people regardless if it is a deal that the EU & the government jointly propose, but I suspect it wont and it will be the remain bandwagon that tries to block it. Both sides want at the extreme sides a perfect deal that suits there thoughts regardless of what it does to the UK or the EU, it is up to the moderates in the middle to actually move from those positions so this can move to the next phase and show real progress.

Lancaster appears to have moved somewhat to the middle yet the rest of the staunch remain crowd on here have not. Note: I have not mentioned leave people moving, mainly down to the fact that I believe we had a mandate to leave but I do support the "not to leave at any cost" mantra.

I'm consistent Kate.

I'd rather remain, but I accept the referendum result.

So I reluctantly back a deal that is close to Mays deal.

Pretty much most remainers will do, but if the drive for a "No Deal" continues, then the amount willing to compromise will drop on the remain side.

[Murger]

https://bloom.bg/2oVhbsC" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who'd have thought it eh?

[AndyClaret]

No problem with a time limit, as long as its there to protect both the UK and the EU and the UK have serious proposals to replace it.

They haven't yet, which is why the EU haven't been flexible on it.

If there's a time-limit then it's a lot harder for the EU to keep poo-pooing ideas.

[KateR]

I do have expertise in negotiating and therefore the issue for me lies in whether the threat of no deal/walk away is something one should have at the table.

My personal felling is that you need to have that commitment and you need to ensure that the opposite side negotiating knows this and has to take this into the context of the give and take which is the basis for negotiation. Therefore while I am opposed to leaving with no deal I do support the stance that it should be on the table.

Certain so called "red lines" from both parties do need to be tabled at the beginning such that each party understand the boundaries of the negotiation, however I have seen red lines moved but certainly never eradicated and they were clear in the final signed deal.

We all know the EU knew that the UK stance under May leading to her triple failed deal was made in the very clear knowledge that "no deal" would never be an end result. In some ways Gina Miller and others getting the law to such a point that parliament would be the body that said yes or no caused this impasse, otherwise if it had been left to the PM/government we would have left with May's deal. Therefore I am grateful this block/change happened as I do believe no deal would have been better than the May deal, which fundamentally benefits the EU far more that the UK.

Ohh and just to be clear I did walk away from one multi billion deal because the other side were inflexible in regard to just one red line/clause in the agreement. Yet concluded many deeds that benefited both parties, some of these negotiations took between 2 and 3 years to agree, therefore I never believed that Brexit could be concluded in 3 years let alone 2 from 2016. However in the negotiation the executives were 100% behind me in terms of never disputing anything I said publically or to the other party, having a one team mentality is critical, something the EU 27 are far better at than our parliament.

[summitclaret]

No problem with a time limit, as long as its there to protect both the UK and the EU and the UK have serious proposals to replace it.

They haven't yet, which is why the EU haven't been flexible on it.

If this is true it really would be progress as long as the time is not too long. My objection has always been that we would have no control over whether we ever left fully. Combine this with a canada style free trade deal in the PD and it would imo get virtually every tory and DUP vote.

That would also show the true motives of the tory rebels that previously voted fot May's deal including Hammond and Clarke. Did they vote for it because it was any deal or because they knew we would never leave properly?

[Lowbankclaret]

I have a bad feeling that the backstop and the Irish border will not be the only stumbling block and assuming it will be solved we will then move on to another issue which prevents parliament from accepting "the deal".

I must admit at the very simplistic level and 35,000 foot level I find it difficult to understand why there needs to be a border if both sides as they say do not want one. I do however understand the fundament's of why some are blocking yet why can not trade as it has been for say the last 3 of 5 years be looked at and that a similar amount of trade be allowed to pass without tariffs on the basis of we keep the same law basically that we have with the EU for all things, particularly agriculture and animals. I feel things like chlorinated chicken and other similar goods could be excluded from NI. Obviously the trust issue will be the big one and random stops/checks could occur and the contents would need to match the electronic form of identifying goods passing through the imaginary border of where/how it is today.

I do understand this is to difficult for both sides and assurances need to be in place, and that NI needs to agree to being treated slightly different, plus the remainder of the UK would need checks on goods traveling to NI bound for Ireland. Additionally NI would be banned as a route to transport good to mainland Europe from the UK, one which I believe is sensible but would like to hear any dissent on this issue.

Have you research chlorinated Chicken ???

Basically chicken washed in water with added chlorine at rate similar to our tap water. In tests some where lower, some were higher.

And any salad from the EU is washed in the same chlorinated water.

Complete non issue.

[Lancasterclaret]

If there's a time-limit then it's a lot harder for the EU to keep poo-pooing ideas.

Well, the UK need to present actual ideas rather than fanciful stuff that doesn't exist yet.

Look, if the tech existing and the UK knew what it wanted to do, then there would be no issue with the backstop at all.

Its because the tech doesn't exist, the UK doesn't know what it wants to do with it and even if it could work, that the backstop is there.

[Devils_Advocate]

Have you research chlorinated Chicken ???

Basically chicken washed in water with added chlorine at rate similar to our tap water. In tests some where lower, some were higher.

And any salad from the EU is washed in the same chlorinated water.

Complete non issue.

Jesus Christ you manage to misunderstand pretty much everything you look in to

[Lancasterclaret]

I do have expertise in negotiating and therefore the issue for me lies in whether the threat of no deal/walk away is something one should have at the table.

My personal felling is that you need to have that commitment and you need to ensure that the opposite side negotiating knows this and has to take this into the context of the give and take which is the basis for negotiation. Therefore while I am opposed to leaving with no deal I do support the stance that it should be on the table.

Certain so called "red lines" from both parties do need to be tabled at the beginning such that each party understand the boundaries of the negotiation, however I have seen red lines moved but certainly never eradicated and they were clear in the final signed deal.

We all know the EU knew that the UK stance under May leading to her triple failed deal was made in the very clear knowledge that "no deal" would never be an end result. In some ways Gina Miller and others getting the law to such a point that parliament would be the body that said yes or no caused this impasse, otherwise if it had been left to the PM/government we would have left with May's deal. Therefore I am grateful this block/change happened as I do believe no deal would have been better than the May deal, which fundamentally benefits the EU far more that the UK.

The UK red lines are set in stone as per the Conservative Parties demands

The EU red lines are the fundamental principles of why the EU was set up in the first place.

They are not going to shift that for a country that is leaving.

Thats an absolute given I'm afraid.

[Lowbankclaret]

Surely that would involve the EU essentially involving itself in the UK internal affairs and helping bypass Parliament and UK Law?

Not only can I not see the EU doing that, but any self respecting brexiteer will have real trouble looking in the mirror in the morning if we leave only because the EU over ruled Parliament and UK law?

That’s what they do all the time passing EU laws we have to abide by no questions asked, and will have to accept more EU intervention if we stayed in.

I think your argument is flawed on this one.

[Lancasterclaret]

That’s what they do all the time passing EU laws we have to abide by no questions asked, and will have to accept more EU intervention if we stayed in.

I think your argument is flawed on this one.

I suspect your grasp of the reality of this one isn't great.

[Lancasterclaret]

A time-limit to the backstop ?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... p-k181x3fh" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/stat ... 6637649920" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Calm down everyone, nothing to see here.

[KateR]

Have you research chlorinated Chicken ???

Basically chicken washed in water with added chlorine at rate similar to our tap water. In tests some where lower, some were higher.

And any salad from the EU is washed in the same chlorinated water.

Complete non issue.

I am in the US a lot, I have been eating chlorinated chicken for over 20 years, 18 of those years I had no idea it was chlorinated chicken and I agree it is a non issue but you need to realize there are other more important things involved than the chlorinated bit. In essence the real issue is the way the US kill chickens, and other animals, this was is completely against EU rules and presently the UK rules. I would not support changing the law around this just to allow US meats into the UK to pander to the US trade, therefore it needs to be recognized and understood what these trade offs are and would you change law/red lines around this.

So while I wholly support your statement that chlorinated chicken is a non issue it is more complicated than that. It should also be noted that anyone who travels to the US and other far flung places is eating food (meats) that would never be allowed on your plate in the EU (UK).

[Lowbankclaret]

Jesus Christ you manage to misunderstand pretty much everything you look in to

Just pointing out it’s a non issue.

Should not impact any deal.

[Lowbankclaret]

I suspect your grasp of the reality of this one isn't great.

Oh yes sorry, we don’t have to accept all EU laws passed.

Forgive me, we can remain then. I misunderstood all along. I feel really sorry for Norway as they have to, didn’t understand our special relationship meant we can ignore all EU law.

[KateR]

The UK red lines are set in stone as per the Conservative Parties demands

The EU red lines are the fundamental principles of why the EU was set up in the first place.

They are not going to shift that for a country that is leaving.

Thats an absolute given I'm afraid.

I updated my original post which you answered here to give some more context in what I was trying to say.

The problem for me is that the EU are not really negotiating in terms of, yes UK you are leaving and here are the best terms for you and us. They are negotiating for the best for them that includes we will demonstrate to the 27 that it is not a good idea to consider leaving or this will happen to you to. Fundamentally I am opposed to this type of negotiation as it is not in the best interests of both parties, as you have seen there deal has lead to a different PM, a different style of negotiation simply because they believed in pushing May around would give them the advantage. It has not and it makes things more difficult for everyone, the EU personnel have not changed in reality and nor will there stance in my opinion and therefore they are just as culpable in driving the "no deal bandwagon" over the cliff even though they know it will cause issues/problems within the 27 that need not be there.

I don't believe it's an absolute give, and what is more important so do many who will be influential in the final decision being signed.

[Lancasterclaret]

Oh yes sorry, we don’t have to accept all EU laws passed.

Forgive me, we can remain then. I misunderstood all along. I feel really sorry for Norway as they have to, didn’t understand our special relationship meant we can ignore all EU law.

I think, with all the respect in the world, that you are unaware of any EU laws that have been passed without the full consent of the UK government.

[Lowbankclaret]

I am in the US a lot, I have been eating chlorinated chicken for over 20 years, 18 of those years I had no idea it was chlorinated chicken and I agree it is a non issue but you need to realize there are other more important things involved than the chlorinated bit. In essence the real issue is the way the US kill chickens, and other animals, this was is completely against EU rules and presently the UK rules. I would not support changing the law around this just to allow US meats into the UK to pander to the US trade, therefore it needs to be recognized and understood what these trade offs are and would you change law/red lines around this.

So while I wholly support your statement that chlorinated chicken is a non issue it is more complicated than that. It should also be noted that anyone who travels to the US and other far flung places is eating food (meats) that would never be allowed on your plate in the EU (UK).

I have not researched how they kill them as opposed to how we kill them.

I will educate myself.

I keep chickens and kill my own. I hate that time the head comes off in your hands.

[Lowbankclaret]

I think, with all the respect in the world, that you are unaware of any EU laws that have been passed without the full consent of the UK government.

I think you need to look at the changes the EU made to remove veto’s .

They made most votes majority only votes, so we had no power at all.

I saw some figures that we voted against about 70 laws that went through.

[Imploding Turtle]

I have not researched how they kill them as opposed to how we kill them.

I will educate myself.

I keep chickens and kill my own. I hate that time the head comes off in your hands.

Would be nice if you stopped voting for them when that happens.

[martin_p]

I think you need to look at the changes the EU made to remove veto’s .

They made most votes majority only votes, so we had no power at all.

I saw some figures that we voted against about 70 laws that went through.

And how has your life been negatively impacted by those 70 laws?

[Lancasterclaret]

I think you need to look at the changes the EU made to remove veto’s .

They made most votes majority only votes, so we had no power at all.

I saw some figures that we voted against about 70 laws that went through.

The veto will remain and majority voting won't be replacing it in major decisions.

Thats the kind of stuff you need to know btw

[aggi]

Just pointing out it’s a non issue.

Should not impact any deal.

It sounds like your research was very limited. The issue isn't the chlorine (where your research seems to have stopped), the issue is that in America they have to wash the chickens in chlorine to try and get rid of bacteria because their welfare standards are much lower than ours.

We have the stance that the bird shouldn't be covered in bacteria to start with, in America the stance is we'll wash it and hope for the best.

[Imploding Turtle]

I think you need to look at the changes the EU made to remove veto’s .

They made most votes majority only votes, so we had no power at all.

I saw some figures that we voted against about 70 laws that went through.

Wait. No power at all? We don't get a vote? Everyone else gets votes but we don't? That's scandalous.

[Devils_Advocate]

Just pointing out it’s a non issue.

Should not impact any deal.

It is an issue but just not the way you have understood it.

Why dont you try and do some research and tell me why the EU ban chlorinated chicken. I'll give you a clue that its got nothing to do with the chlorine residue found on the food being unsafe

[aggi]

Oh yes sorry, we don’t have to accept all EU laws passed.

Forgive me, we can remain then. I misunderstood all along. I feel really sorry for Norway as they have to, didn’t understand our special relationship meant we can ignore all EU law.

You should probably do some reading up on Norway and EU laws as well. I think it's about 80% of EU laws that don't apply there.