Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[summitclaret]

He has said that he was not in a position to agree anythi
because May was in control. Why do you think he resigned?

[Jakubclaret]

This is remainer myth.

True, from my understanding Davis was a proud & principled man, the job remit allocated to the particular role was to serve the withdrawal from the EU on a path exactly as the referendum result vote intended, negotiating with no deviations straying away from that very purpose, problematical for him from the outset as he was undermined within that role by may ideologically opposed to brexit, without no leadership guidance or conviction or support the position was untenable hence the resignation.

[nil_desperandum]

He has said that he was not in a position to agree anythi
because May was in control. Why do you think he resigned?

Very difficult to make any proposals, let alone agree anything if you only negotiate for 4 hours in 2 years.
Barnier was deeply critical of Davis for continually failing to turn up for scheduled talks. Apparently he only ever turned up at the beginning of a round of talks, disappeared, and then returned at the end.
Although you say he wasn't in a position to agree anything, he very quickly agreed that we should agree the divorce settlement and Withdrawal Agreement before opening Trade talks.
He essentially resigned because he failed to achieve what he had claimed would be an easy task.

[AndrewJB]

He has said that he was not in a position to agree anythi
because May was in control. Why do you think he resigned?

People say that May was a remainer and sabotaged Brexit, and it begs the question, why did Davis and Johnson and Gove, and everyone else serve under her for so long, and not pot her? Why didn’t anyone say at the time, “hey she’s sabotaging Brexit!”? Surely there is some culpability among those brexiters for allowing her to screw up their project?

[summitclaret]

BJ walked after Cheqeurs. Imagine giving up a job of Foreign Sec. He stuck to his beliefs. To be fair Gove has tried really hard to get a deal from June 2016 and has been a loyal cabinet member all along..

[Spijed]

Imagine giving up a job of Foreign Sec. .

And regarded as the worst in living memory!

[Jakubclaret]

People say that May was a remainer and sabotaged Brexit, and it begs the question, why did Davis and Johnson and Gove, and everyone else serve under her for so long, and not pot her? Why didn’t anyone say at the time, “hey she’s sabotaging Brexit!”? Surely there is some culpability among those brexiters for allowing her to screw up their project?

Concerns were voiced at the time that she was undermining brexit, at the end of the day she was the boss & maybe you are right some members of the cabinet could have been more vocal & leaked more to the media, with no GE or leadership challenge on the horizon, it was a fixed situation, Davis himself even resigned unhappy I can’t think of a better way of exposing may & her unwillingness to take brexit seriously. At that particular time there was no real method of ousting may away from power.

[If it be your will]

True, from my understanding Davis was a proud & principled man, the job remit allocated to the particular role was to serve the withdrawal from the EU on a path exactly as the referendum result vote intended, negotiating with no deviations straying away from that very purpose, problematical for him from the outset as he was undermined within that role by may ideologically opposed to brexit, without no leadership guidance or conviction or support the position was untenable hence the resignation.

This entire period was a completely different era to the one we're in now. This was a time when most leavers agreed that the views of the 48% should be taken into account. Equally, most remainers were fundamentally accepting of the referendum result. Both sides had the right attitude, but it just didn't work. Not for Davis, not for Boris, not for Raab, not for May, not for anyone.

The current era is characterised by leavers cutting remainers out of the process entirely (even to the extent of withdrawing the whip), and remainers refusing to accept anything other than full remain. Both sides have totally the wrong attitude, but it does at least appear to be working.

[nil_desperandum]

BJ walked after Cheqeurs. Imagine giving up a job of Foreign Sec. He stuck to his beliefs. .

Indeed. He then subsequently voted for that deal ,(the May deal) in the Commons, and is apparently going to put something pretty similar to May's deal to Parliament next week.
Whatever you think of brexit, no one thinks that Johnson has any beliefs, not even his brother and sister.

[nil_desperandum]

This entire period was a completely different era to the one we're in now. This was a time when most leavers agreed that the views of the 48% should be taken into account. Equally, most remainers were fundamentally accepting of the referendum result. Both sides had the right attitude, but it just didn't work. .

To an extent you support my point there.
Had we sent someone serious to Brussels at this stage rather than an utter buffoon and waster like Davis then we might have made quick progress towards a deal.

[If it be your will]

To an extent you support my point there.
Had we sent someone serious to Brussels at this stage rather than an utter buffoon and waster like Davis then we might have made quick progress towards a deal.

Who knows? My instinct says that at that moment it was an impossible job for anyone to have done well. But that's all it is - instinct. Not exactly persuasive, I know.

[Spijed]

Financial Times Economic Editor on how Johnson’s proposals are much worse for the economy than the May deal

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182 ... 45249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AndrewJB]

True, from my understanding Davis was a proud & principled man, the job remit allocated to the particular role was to serve the withdrawal from the EU on a path exactly as the referendum result vote intended, negotiating with no deviations straying away from that very purpose, problematical for him from the outset as he was undermined within that role by may ideologically opposed to brexit, without no leadership guidance or conviction or support the position was untenable hence the resignation.

Leaver myth.

The government never asked what kind of Brexit we wanted, and didn’t consult with other parties, and the answer was just yes or no - so there couldn’t possibly be a “path exactly as the result intended”

I think Davis quit because he knew he’d never be able to achieve what he claimed he would.

[If it be your will]

Quite a few leave people have described May’s deal as terrible in just the last few days. Do they still think this way, or have they changed their minds?

I'll try not to provoke an argument. If what is leaking out represents reality, this deal is fundamentally different to May's deal. If nothing else, any backstop will only apply to NI, and it's not even clear if there is to be any backstop at all. And NI will in future decide whether to stay in SM and CU or more align with UK, though the details of this 'consent' are very scarce. There is also a 2 border principle in play. UK is still collecting tariffs for the EU, but only at Belfast rather than the whole of the UK. There are enormous differences between this deal (again, if what is leaking is accurate) and May's deal.

Regarding who has 'won', my answer is neither. Nor am I bothered. The UK has rubbed out another red line (allowing a tariff border in the Irish sea which might upset unionists). But the most remarkable thing for me is that this is the first time in 3 years that the EU has bent on its stance at all. Something I thought was never, ever going to happen.

[Jakubclaret]

Leaver myth.

The government never asked what kind of Brexit we wanted, and didn’t consult with other parties, and the answer was just yes or no - so there couldn’t possibly be a “path exactly as the result intended”

I think Davis quit because he knew he’d never be able to achieve what he claimed he would.

The government within itself regardless of which political party at the helm faced a very difficult task & still does, due to the close call of the vote & stiff resistance ever since towards brexit & doubts about the best way to leave & what deal we can achieve taking into consideration the EU don’t want us to. You are right initially it was a simple yes or no, the government at that stage prior to the result were so confident of a landslide it wasn’t really entertained by Cameron & co to ask them sort of questions the remaining confidence at that time, it was a big wake up call not envisaged.

[nil_desperandum]

Who knows? My instinct says that at that moment it was an impossible job for anyone to have done well. But that's all it is - instinct. Not exactly persuasive, I know.

My feeling is that if someone like Gove had gone to Brussels at the outset rather than the dim-witted Davis, he could well have proposed that we make a phased withdrawal from the EU.
We could have left after say 6 months whilst remaining in the CU, Single Market and ECJ, and set a timetable to negotiate to exit these one by one over a period of say 3 years. I'm sure that the markets and business would have backed this approach.
This would have meant that we would have officially left in 2017, and by now we would hopefully have been close to negotiating our way to what most leavers wanted and what remainers would have gradually come to accept. Moving step by step is always likely to gain more consensus than an abrupt leap into the unknown.
Yes, it might have taken 3 to 4 years in total, but where are we now after 3 years. We haven't even started Trade talks.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Anyone who believes that would believe anything.

The compromise here isn't from the EU.

So, this isn’t going to be the UK cherry picking the single market?

Seems like it to me based on the rumours. You know, the thing the EU have always demanded could never happen. Every major company interested in exporting to the EU setting up a subsidiary in Belfast and simply driving their products south.

As we know, the four freedoms are indivisible - so if NI have access to the single market will they also have to entertain free movement? Doubtful. No, we have moved a bit, but the EU have moved massively.

[If it be your will]

Financial Times Economic Editor on how Johnson’s proposals are much worse for the economy than the May deal

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182 ... 45249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm not good enough to argue the points themselves, but this economic conclusion is based on the idea that this is a fairly hard brexit. That is, if you thought brexit was going to be economically damaging to begin with, you would conclude that this deal is going to be more economically damaging when compared to May's BRINO, simply because of its relative 'hardness'.

He even says it on his first line: "Johnson's is a much HARDER Brexit than May's"

[nil_desperandum]

But the most remarkable thing for me is that this is the first time in 3 years that the EU has bent on its stance at all. Something I thought was never, ever going to happen.

Not sure that they have bent or moved their red lines, though we can't be sure what's being proposed.
If the border is the Irish Sea then there is a border for the Customs, which is what the EU required, and also there'll be no hard border between ROI and the north, so the Belfast Agreement is not broken, which was also a red line for the EU .
If that's correct then the EU haven't budged at all - Johnson has. It seems to breach one of the ERG red lines though.

[CrosspoolClarets]

People say that May was a remainer and sabotaged Brexit, and it begs the question, why did Davis and Johnson and Gove, and everyone else serve under her for so long, and not pot her? Why didn’t anyone say at the time, “hey she’s sabotaging Brexit!”? Surely there is some culpability among those brexiters for allowing her to screw up their project?

She didn’t sabotage Brexit. She is a decent, honourable woman who tried her best (though that was woefully short of what is needed for one of the world’s hardest jobs).

But she is a Remainer, and the sense I get is that she played a clever game during the referendum (only giving one speech) in making it seem she was a borderline leaver and thus got the top job afterwards. That was clearly bullocks. She is anti risk, a follower by nature. No way was she a Brexiteer.

[Lancasterclaret]

So, this isn’t going to be the UK cherry picking the single market?

Seems like it to me based on the rumours. You know, the thing the EU have always demanded could never happen. Every major company interested in exporting to the EU setting up a subsidiary in Belfast and simply driving their products south.

As we know, the four freedoms are indivisible - so if NI have access to the single market will they also have to entertain free movement? Doubtful. No, we have moved a bit, but the EU have moved massively.

Not even a hint of that in any media sources (Daily Telegraph through to the Guardian).

Something that huge would be out in the public domain by now and Brexiteers would be lauding Johnson to the rooftops.

[Lancasterclaret]

She didn’t sabotage Brexit. She is a decent, honourable woman who tried her best (though that was woefully short of what is needed for one of the world’s hardest jobs).

But she is a Remainer, and the sense I get is that she played a clever game during the referendum (only giving one speech) in making it seem she was a borderline leaver and thus got the top job afterwards. That was clearly bullocks. She is anti risk, a follower by nature. No way was she a Brexiteer.

Her deal is the basis for this one.

Which is now suddenly fantastic for Brexiteers.

Draw your own conclusions folks, but reality has smacked the Brexit bunch around the head and they realise this could well be it.

[If it be your will]

So, this isn’t going to be the UK cherry picking the single market?

Seems like it to me based on the rumours. You know, the thing the EU have always demanded could never happen. Every major company interested in exporting to the EU setting up a subsidiary in Belfast and simply driving their products south.

As we know, the four freedoms are indivisible - so if NI have access to the single market will they also have to entertain free movement? Doubtful. No, we have moved a bit, but the EU have moved massively.

I hadn't actually considered this loophole. Hmm. There's no way the EU are going to agree to this, is there??

But there is going to be a tariff border in the Irish Sea, so goods brought from the UK will be taxed by the EU. So to take advantage of this loophole companies would have to actually make the products in NI, surely?

Hang on. Is this why the unionists aren't kicking up a fuss about the tariff border in the Irish Sea? Are they set to gain from a manufacturing explosion in NI?? The plot thickens.

[CombatClaret]

One by one the tangible benefits were shown to be false or utterly unachievable, now all we have left are lies and jingoistic abstractions about sovereignty, control etc.

brx.jpg (276.42 KiB) Viewed 1277 times

[If it be your will]

Not sure that they have bent or moved their red lines, though we can't be sure what's being proposed.
If the border is the Irish Sea then there is a border for the Customs, which is what the EU required, and also there'll be no hard border between ROI and the north, so the Belfast Agreement is not broken, which was also a red line for the EU .
If that's correct then the EU haven't budged at all - Johnson has. It seems to breach one of the ERG red lines though.

But don't the UK regulations, taxes and international tariffs apply to NI in this deal? That is, they're allowed to follow UK rules, yet they can export freely in ROI. If this is the case, the EU would have binned this off immediately had it been put to them a month ago.

I don't know. It's all speculation until we see the details. But the more I think about it, the more unacceptable this all seems from an EU perspective. Let's say the UK were to relax regulations, then surely companies in the ROI will up sticks and move north to take advantage of them. Why on earth would ROI agree to this?

I can't see this deal passing as it stands.

Edit - the bolded bit is wrong, I think. It should be deleted. It appears it will be UK taxes and international tariffs, but EU regulations. That makes it somewhat more palatable for the EU.

[Greenmile]

Hi Greenmile, interesting thing for Einstein to have said. If you consult Quote Investigator it is not certain that Einstein made this statement. The words were first used by a journalist writing about Einstein.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/29/common-sense/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Paul.

Yes, I know - that’s why I used the words “alleged to”, and then “probably”.

It’s a good (and accurate) quote , though.

[If it be your will]

Not even a hint of that in any media sources (Daily Telegraph through to the Guardian).

Something that huge would be out in the public domain by now and Brexiteers would be lauding Johnson to the rooftops.

Me neither. I think what is leaking out must be a long way from what is actually being discussed. I'd be astonished if the EU - or more to the point, ROI - would allow anything like what is leaking out.

Did you just think that up yourself Crosspool (if so, hats off)? Or have you seen that somewhere?

[CrosspoolClarets]

Financial Times Economic Editor on how Johnson’s proposals are much worse for the economy than the May deal

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182 ... 45249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a load of absolute cobblers (not you Spijed).

I advise on economics (and other things) for my business, and somebody talking the kind of guff as Chris Giles should be barred from writing about it. He actually uses the words “UK government thinks this will end up making us ALL £2,250 A YEAR POORER”. Total toss. The current government or the past one?

There are so many variables behind the assumptions in the scenarios in the paper he quotes. The thrust of what he is saying is that customs costs and non tariff barriers make it a far worse deal than May’s. There is some truth in it of course, but they don’t even know the detail of what Johnson could agree.

In a nutshell (I don’t have the time or energy to lay it out in detail) he is modelling all of the negatives of Brexit, with exaggeration, and few if any of the benefits.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I hadn't actually considered this loophole. Hmm. There's no way the EU are going to agree to this, is there??

But there is going to be a tariff border in the Irish Sea, so goods brought from the UK will be taxed by the EU. So to take advantage of this loophole companies would have to actually make the products in NI, surely?

Hang on. Is this why the unionists aren't kicking up a fuss about the tariff border in the Irish Sea? Are they set to gain from a manufacturing explosion in NI?? The plot thickens.

Yes of course NI will benefit, but let us remember this spins both ways. This gives the EU, and Ireland in particular, a route into the UK market.

They will agree. It is a sensible win win, but one which destroys their previous red lines - the key is if they can sell it without admitting they have done it, and whether they can use the GFA excuse to stop other countries leaving and doing the same.

[Lancasterclaret]

What a load of absolute cobblers (not you Spijed).

I advise on economics (and other things) for my business, and somebody talking the kind of guff as Chris Giles should be barred from writing about it. He actually uses the words “UK government thinks this will end up making us ALL £2,250 A YEAR POORER”. Total toss. The current government or the past one?

There are so many variables behind the assumptions in the scenarios in the paper he quotes. The thrust of what he is saying is that customs costs and non tariff barriers make it a far worse deal than May’s. There is some truth in it of course, but they don’t even know the detail of what Johnson could agree.

In a nutshell (I don’t have the time or energy to lay it out in detail) he is modelling all of the negatives of Brexit, with exaggeration, and few if any of the benefits.

I'll tell you one thing that is 100% correct

This deal is worse than the one we have now.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Her deal is the basis for this one.

Which is now suddenly fantastic for Brexiteers.

Draw your own conclusions folks, but reality has smacked the Brexit bunch around the head and they realise this could well be it.

Seriously, this will be far from May’s deal. Not least because the political declaration will be totally different and won’t lock us into a Customs Union. If it is May’s deal, that nonsense I mentioned above from the FT wouldn’t have been written. It is very different.

[If it be your will]

Yes of course NI will benefit, but let us remember this spins both ways. This gives the EU, and Ireland in particular, a route into the UK market.

They will agree. It is a sensible win win, but one which destroys their previous red lines - the key is if they can sell it without admitting they have done it, and whether they can use the GFA excuse to stop other countries leaving and doing the same.

Aaaah, I see! Yes, I think I'm getting it now.

[If it be your will]

Seriously, this will be far from May’s deal. Not least because the political declaration will be totally different and won’t lock us into a Customs Union. If it is May’s deal, that nonsense I mentioned above from the FT wouldn’t have been written. It is very different.

It is right. As I explained to AndrewJB earlier, from what I can see, this deal is absolutely nothing like May's deal.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes of course NI will benefit, but let us remember this spins both ways. This gives the EU, and Ireland in particular, a route into the UK market.

They will agree. It is a sensible win win, but one which destroys their previous red lines - the key is if they can sell it without admitting they have done it, and whether they can use the GFA excuse to stop other countries leaving and doing the same.

Which red lines of theirs does it "destroy"?

You are going to have to seriously up your game here CC.

NI is isolated from the rest of the UK by sea.

They have already said (in 2016 no less) that because of the special circumstances of the Irish question that they are prepared to waiver a lot to make this work.

The risks to the EU market of UK companies flooding the EU through NI are not that high are they?

I mean, think about it.

Land access to one small EU country only, direct ferry routes only to the UK, one medium sized airport only.

100% because the risk to the EU is small, this deal might work.

But to say it "destroys" EU red lines is ridiculous.

[Lancasterclaret]

It is right. As I explained to AndrewJB earlier, from what I can see, this deal is absolutely nothing like May's deal.

It is very like Mays deal though

Custom union lock in all but name for starters and we haven't even seen the rest.

The WA took months to agree too, and its not going to be changed by Johnson or the EU, if only because there just isn't the timescale.

NI does very well out of Mays deal, and will do very well out of this one.

That gives the DUP a valid avenue of retreat as well to save face.

This might actually work.

[dsr]

Financial Times Economic Editor on how Johnson’s proposals are much worse for the economy than the May deal

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182 ... 45249.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to see a more reliable set of figures than this.

This argument says that extra customs costs will cost 1.4% of GDP. GDP (2017) was $2.62 trillion, so they're talking about approx. $37 billion (say £30 billion). And as backup, they quote a Financial Times article showing the extra cost of form filling as £15 billion. There's a difference.

And then the total UK exports to the EU, both tangible and intangible, total £289 billion. Of this, only £175 billion is goods. (I don't think the form filling requirements apply to services.)

But if goods exports to the EU are £175 billion and the extra costs over and above what they pay now for form filling is £30 billion, that's 17% - one sixth of the cost of a car. Or put another way, if Nissan export one car to the EU at cost of £12,000, then they have to pay £2,000 to fill in the forms. If they export 10 cars, it's £20,000. One batch of say 15 cars will take the wages of a member of the admin staff for a full year. Is that actually true? I mean, every export to the EU already has a vast batch of paperwork - quality control sheets, record of engine number and numerous other part numbers, order numbers, delivery notes, sales invoice, all accounting entries, audit notes, intrastat notes, VAT notes - is the extra paperwork going to cost so much? It's impossible to believe. Have they evaluated this by working out the cost of exporting one widget to the USA with the cost of exporting one widget to the EU?

I certainly don't know of any other commercial business where the form filling requirements are 17% of the gross sales value. It isn't viable.

[Lancasterclaret]

I would like to see a more reliable set of figures than this.

This argument says that extra customs costs will cost 1.4% of GDP. GDP (2017) was $2.62 trillion, so they're talking about approx. $37 billion (say £30 billion). And as backup, they quote a Financial Times article showing the extra cost of form filling as £15 billion. There's a difference.

And then the total UK exports to the EU, both tangible and intangible, total £289 billion. Of this, only £175 billion is goods. (I don't think the form filling requirements apply to services.)

But if goods exports to the EU are £175 billion and the extra costs over and above what they pay now for form filling is £30 billion, that's 17% - one sixth of the cost of a car. Or put another way, if Nissan export one car to the EU at cost of £12,000, then they have to pay £2,000 to fill in the forms. If they export 10 cars, it's £20,000. One batch of say 15 cars will take the wages of a member of the admin staff for a full year. Is that actually true? I mean, every export to the EU already has a vast batch of paperwork - quality control sheets, record of engine number and numerous other part numbers, order numbers, delivery notes, sales invoice, all accounting entries, audit notes, intrastat notes, VAT notes - is the extra paperwork going to cost so much? It's impossible to believe. Have they evaluated this by working out the cost of exporting one widget to the USA with the cost of exporting one widget to the EU?

I certainly don't know of any other commercial business where the form filling requirements are 17% of the gross sales value. It isn't viable.

Can't wait for some made up figures that will claim that this deal is better than the one we have now.

It will be like 2016 all over again.

Not a single Brexiteer has tried to argue the economic case for this for about a year.

[dsr]

Can't wait for some made up figures that will claim that this deal is better than the one we have now.

It will be like 2016 all over again.

Not a single Brexiteer has tried to argue the economic case for this for about a year.

And no remainer has tried to argue the political case.

[Lancasterclaret]

And no remainer has tried to argue the political case.

You probably want to delete that one!

Way I see it, this deal will leave us off a lot worse than we are now, the tactics used by both sides has damaged democracy in the UK and the added stresses to the UK internal fabric have increased the chances of the UK splitting up.

I really hope its worth it, cos I don't see it.

And I absolutely guarantee that the zero effect the EU has had on your normal everyday life will not change one bit.

[If it be your will]

It is very like Mays deal though

Custom union lock in all but name for starters and we haven't even seen the rest.

The WA took months to agree too, and its not going to be changed by Johnson or the EU, if only because there just isn't the timescale.

NI does very well out of Mays deal, and will do very well out of this one.

That gives the DUP a valid avenue of retreat as well to save face.

This might actually work.

Leaving all else aside, can you at least see that this deal (if accurately portrayed in the leaks) means mainland UK is not tied to EU laws, customs rules, SM rules, EU commission's decisions, or EU parliament's decisions? And that this was not the case with May's deal for as long as the backstop remained in force?

[Lancasterclaret]

Leaving all else aside, can you at least see that this deal (if accurately portrayed in the leaks) means mainland UK is not tied to EU laws, customs rules, SM rules, EU commission, or EU parliament? And that this was not the case with May's deal for as long as the backstop remained in force?

As I said earlier, the backstop worked both ways AND acted as an incentive for both sides to leave it as soon as possible.

Once the backstop goes, then we can do FTAs, EFTAS, full SM/CU membership, whatever.

The difference is that it gives Brexiteers something to claim a win.

Good for them!

[Lancasterclaret]

I mean, PM Foster (again) of the Telegraph

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 4078277632" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Crosspool et al claiming a big win.

Reality is something different.

[If it be your will]

As I said earlier, the backstop worked both ways AND acted as an incentive for both sides to leave it as soon as possible.

Once the backstop goes, then we can do FTAs, EFTAS, full SM/CU membership, whatever.

The difference is that it gives Brexiteers something to claim a win.

Good for them!

The backstop is gone for mainland Britain! The very thing that risked the UK becoming a vassal state, and making our negotiating position so weak going forward, is gone for mainland Britain! Yet you see no difference between this and May's deal?

I suppose if leavers are happy with it, and remainers like yourself are happy with it because they see it as a Brino, then everyone's a winner, I guess.

[Lancasterclaret]

The backstop is gone for mainland Britain! The very thing that risked the UK becoming a vassal state, and making our negotiating position so weak going forward, is gone for mainland Britain! Yet you see no difference between this and May's deal?

I suppose if leavers are happy with it, and remainers like yourself are happy with it because they see it as a Brino, then everyone's a winner, I guess.

I'm happy with it because its better than "No Deal".

Its still shite.

Again, your complete refusal to see the backstop as a device for both sides, and as something neither side wants to keep any longer than necessary is very hard to comprehend.

In three years we've done untold damage to the UK for something that only would last two years and then we go down the FTA route no bother.

In normal times, this level of incompetence would be punished at the ballot box.

But you, despite being as lefty as they come, still thinks this is a triumph for Brexit.

We certainly live in interesting times.

[AndrewJB]

Some more Brexit good news: https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... eu-workers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CrosspoolClarets]

Which red lines of theirs does it "destroy"?

You are going to have to seriously up your game here CC.

NI is isolated from the rest of the UK by sea.

They have already said (in 2016 no less) that because of the special circumstances of the Irish question that they are prepared to waiver a lot to make this work.

The risks to the EU market of UK companies flooding the EU through NI are not that high are they?

I mean, think about it.

Land access to one small EU country only, direct ferry routes only to the UK, one medium sized airport only.

100% because the risk to the EU is small, this deal might work.

But to say it "destroys" EU red lines is ridiculous.

Lancs, Lancs, you are getting increasingly shrill my friend.

Up my game? This messageboard is a bit of light relief, I don’t even warm up.

Back to serious matters, “destroy” red lines is because red lines are red lines. I am not suggesting it will break the EU, or even Ireland.

They are petrified that once one country has a special relationship, others will want it. Perfectly reasonable to describe it in the way I did.

I have said it before - the whole EU Project is based on not having a huge neighbour on the doorstep - us leaving changes it hugely. That is why they had their red lines, but is was never going to work (I’m not assuming a deal yet, but deal or no deal, we will be out).

[AndyClaret]

It is very like Mays deal though

Custom union lock in all but name for starters and we haven't even seen the rest.

The WA took months to agree too, and its not going to be changed by Johnson or the EU, if only because there just isn't the timescale.

NI does very well out of Mays deal, and will do very well out of this one.

That gives the DUP a valid avenue of retreat as well to save face.

This might actually work.

How can it be like mays deal but at the same time considerably worse, it can't be both ?

I agree with Crosspool, It's a N Ireland only version of Mays deal.

[summitclaret]

One by one the tangible benefits were shown to be false or utterly unachievable, now all we have left are lies and jingoistic abstractions about sovereignty, control etc.

brx.jpg

Did you read the headline? It said with a no deal brexit.

[summitclaret]

Latest from Sam Coates at Sky. This explains how this is different to May's deal. It looks to me like this is exactly the sort of creativity I have been expecting once political realities set in all around. Long overdue and only possible because BJ has been determined to get brexit done. There's a long way to go yet, but if he pulls this of with no majority it will be remarkable.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-talks- ... l-11833390" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No doubt labour and the likes of Greive will try to undermine this if it gets to a vote, but this is a poisioned chalice for labour. I really can't see lab mps from the many strong leave seats voting this down or putting their names to a second referendum. Better for labour to uphold their promises from the last GE manifesto and vote for brexit. It would be harder than they could have had if they had supported May, but at least they can say they stopped no deal.

[Lancasterclaret]

Lancs, Lancs, you are getting increasingly shrill my friend.

Up my game? This messageboard is a bit of light relief, I don’t even warm up.

Back to serious matters, “destroy” red lines is because red lines are red lines. I am not suggesting it will break the EU, or even Ireland.

They are petrified that once one country has a special relationship, others will want it. Perfectly reasonable to describe it in the way I did.

I have said it before - the whole EU Project is based on not having a huge neighbour on the doorstep - us leaving changes it hugely. That is why they had their red lines, but is was never going to work (I’m not assuming a deal yet, but deal or no deal, we will be out).

Glad you are treating this as light relief, it puts a whole new concept on your posts.

You believe what you want to believe , and it doesn't matter if it's true or not.

One thing that unites Brexiteers is the ability to ignore stuff you don't want to hear.

Backstop a trap? Course it is! Must be! That fiendish EU!

The reality is different.

A compromise to sort out a difficult problem.

A compromise.

Can you even remember what the word means?