willsclarets wrote:I'm not sure what your point is? In the event no successful negotiation can take place, Tory policy is to leave on a no deal. In what sense does this negate my basic assertion, in relation to the other party's positions, that Tory policy is "leave at all costs".

The tory policy was and is leave with a deal but without one if necessary. Stop misrepresenting matters.

I really don't think I am, but let's leave it there!

A lot of people in Northern Ireland don't seem very happy about this deal, and a few commenters on the radio suggesting it was intended to fail. Michael Gove chipper and confident, but Sarah Wollaston says Johnson has twice now put off sitting in front of her committee to answer questions.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Lol. what?

She was on GMB and said she regretted supporting that when in coalition.

She admitted it, try keeping up.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Well

Johnston is guilty of actually being in charge of stuff and then being a proven liar.

You have to get that he's not going to change just because you back him don't you?

Backing Brexit means you lot just accept him being a liar, which is well weird

Please read what I have said, I accept he is a liar.

I said they all are.

I am not backing him either.

Think it’s going to be a crazy ride.

I was hoping for no deal on 31st Oct but accept he is not going to deliver it.

The EU will block his new deal. Me thinks.

Lowbankclaret wrote:She was on GMB and said she regretted supporting that when in coalition.

She admitted it, try keeping up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD7oWrpKwYA" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Watch from 9 minutes

I see above a comment suggesting that the Tories had decided to leave at all costs?

Actually, it was the UK public who decided to leave at all costs (i.e. regardless of costs) in 2016.

Leaving in a way that maximises value is of course what we should strive for, but Leave has been 100% decided, whatever the cost.

jontybfc wrote:It must be right, he posted graphs and stuff the other day.

Which perhaps your not clever enough to understand the graphs.

And watch the video where she admits it.

That was the slogan of The Leave campaign if I remember correctly.
“Leave whatever the cost”.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I see above a comment suggesting that the Tories had decided to leave at all costs?

Actually, it was the UK public who decided to leave at all costs (i.e. regardless of costs) in 2016.

Any evidence for this?
I think a good number voted expecting a lot of money for the NHS, and on the basis that a trade deal would be the easiest thing ever.
(Not forgetting that Farage told people it would be great to have a Norway type deal).

nil_desperandum wrote:Any evidence for this?
I think a good number voted expecting a lot of money for the NHS, and on the basis that a trade deal would be the easiest thing ever.
(Not forgetting that Farage told people it would be great to have a Norway type deal).

Talk about selective use of info.

Fox said it should be easy because we already had the same standards. The EU would not let us discuss trade until a WA agreement had be agreed and May entered the trap.

summitclaret wrote:Talk about selective use of info.

Fox said it should be easy because we already had the same standards. The EU would not let us discuss trade until a WA agreement had be agreed and May entered the trap.

I don’t care why he thought it would be easy, he was wrong.

martin_p wrote:I don’t care why he thought it would be easy, he was wrong.

How do you know? Negotiating has not started yet.

When ministers spoke of getting a deal being easy, they were hardly likely to foresee that, all those politicians who said it was a once in a lifetime vote, and leave means leave would do everything they could to undermine them.

I know the rhetoric doesn't give the wanted sound bite, but there is no such thing as a no deal. If we dont get a deal then we leave under WTO. That is the truth, it just isnt so melodramatic and doesn't give off the right fear factor.

It's been obvious for 2 years, that because of the remainers in Parliament, the only way to get a deal is to leave without one first. Whether Boris will deliver on the 31st, I dont know but I hope so. Weve been trudging through the mire for too long, it's time to move forward, for people, for businesses, for the EU.

I have just thought that BJ might avoid asking for an extension by getting the EU to say that it needs more time to consider proposals and play the statesman and accept that request. He can then tempt the reluctants into a GE, get a mandate for a free trade deal or leave if necessary and we finally hold some cards.

Colburn_Claret wrote:
I know the rhetoric doesn't give the wanted sound bite, but there is no such thing as a no deal. If we dont get a deal then we leave under WTO. That is the truth, it just isnt so melodramatic and doesn't give off the right fear factor.
.

You do understand that there are a lot more implications to leaving with "no deal" than simply trade?
Re: Trade. As you say, we could revert to WTO terms, which experts and businesses generally say would be damaging, but in many other areas the governments own papers suggest that we will have big problems.
Just about the only agreement we have at present is the one to keep the planes flying.

I'd rather not be right about the consequences of a "No Deal" Brexit if that is alright with you lot.

summitclaret wrote:And in voting for an unfair question will have ignored the advice of EC. I don't know what the law says about that but ir would certainly not be natural justice to allow an unfair question

It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the question it since a referendum is not legally binding anyway. But more to the point it's not the courts job to determine if a referendum question is fair, it's only their job to ensure that the question was legally formed. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand here.

nil_desperandum wrote:You do understand that there are a lot more implications to leaving with "no deal" than simply trade?
Re: Trade. As you say, we could revert to WTO terms, which experts and businesses generally say would be damaging, but in many other areas the governments own papers suggest that we will have big problems.
Just about the only agreement we have at present is the one to keep the planes flying.

By the governments own papers, I presume you mean Yellowhammer

If you look for problems, you will find them, just as people who look for racism see it in every off the cuff remark. By coincidence if you look for solutions, you find solutions. The impasse is the EU arent interested in looking for a solution, they are more than happy to sit on their hands, enjoy the status quo, and pour cold water on everything. It suits their agenda.
If Boris leaves with a 'no' deal, that impasse gets hit with a sledge hammer. Then they have the initiative needed to come up with, or accept, solutions.

All of these things will have been discussed behind closed doors, they would be really stupid if they hadn't looked at all scenarios, as the government did with Yellowhammer, it wont be a case of back to the drawing board and start all over again. The fallback lines will be known, but secret. Time will tell.

Colburn_Claret wrote:By the governments own papers, I presume you mean Yellowhammer

If you look for problems, you will find them, just as people who look for racism see it in every off the cuff remark. By coincidence if you look for solutions, you find solutions. The impasse is the EU arent interested in looking for a solution, they are more than happy to sit on their hands, enjoy the status quo, and pour cold water on everything. It suits their agenda.
If Boris leaves with a 'no' deal, that impasse gets hit with a sledge hammer. Then they have the initiative needed to come up with, or accept, solutions.

All of these things will have been discussed behind closed doors, they would be really stupid if they hadn't looked at all scenarios, as the government did with Yellowhammer, it wont be a case of back to the drawing board and start all over again. The fallback lines will be known, but secret. Time will tell.

You're never going to get it. You will always think that the EU are the ones who should make concessions to us despite it making absolutely no ******* negotiating sense since their hand is far stronger than ours. There's no reasoning with someone like you.

Colburn_Claret wrote:there is no such thing as a no deal. If we dont get a deal

Don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone contradict themselves so quickly!

Imploding Turtle wrote:It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the question it since a referendum is not legally binding anyway. But more to the point it's not the courts job to determine if a referendum question is fair, it's only their job to ensure that the question was legally formed. I'm not sure what's difficult to understand here.

It's also the Court's job to say whether or not the government is acting constitutionally. In view of the recent court decision about prorogation, there is the chance that the Supreme Court may decide that to ignore the referendum result would be unconstitutional and that the referendum was legally binding.

dsr wrote:It's also the Court's job to say whether or not the government is acting constitutionally. In view of the recent court decision about prorogation, there is the chance that the Supreme Court may decide that to ignore the referendum result would be unconstitutional and that the referendum was legally binding.

No

dsr wrote:It's also the Court's job to say whether or not the government is acting constitutionally. In view of the recent court decision about prorogation, there is the chance that the Supreme Court may decide that to ignore the referendum result would be unconstitutional and that the referendum was legally binding.

No it won’t, because it isn’t. I keep telling you parliament is sovereign but you still don’t get it.

dsr wrote:It's also the Court's job to say whether or not the government is acting constitutionally. In view of the recent court decision about prorogation, there is the chance that the Supreme Court may decide that to ignore the referendum result would be unconstitutional and that the referendum was legally binding.

i ******* love it. The guy who in the past has said referendums are never legally binding, despite evidence to the contrary, is now saying that a referendum that is legislatively not legally binding can be made legally binding by the courts.

Do shut up, dear. Parliament can approve legislation asking the public "how big of a poo-poo head is Jeremy Corbyn?" and as long as the legislation was created legally then the courts have no legal reason declare it unconstitutional. And even if they do have a legal reason to nix it, they have no reason at all to ever pass a judgement on the fairness of the question.

Why the **** do so many of you not understand what the purpose of our court system is?

Leaving aside the 3-month possible delay, which only kicks the can down the road anyway:

The Conservative government is putting forward two options.
1 - leave under these new proposals.
2 - leave with no deal.

The EU is putting forward two options as well.
1 - leave under May's proposals.
2 - leave with no deal.

It's certain that the current government prefers their option 1 but will take option 2. It is also certain that the EU government prefers their option 1 - but will they take option 2? I suppose it depends what the purpose of the Irish backstop really is. If it is to prevent border controls and keep the whole of Ireland in the single market, they will be anxiously negotiating as we speak. If, on the other hand, it was to punish the UK and make it hard for us to leave, they will sit on their hands and go with no deal, and Irish border controls.

My own view is that the EU as a whole isn't overly concerned about the position in Ireland and will go down the border controls-no deal route. Not sure how Varadker will take that, because he presumably is concerned about the border controls not being introduced and has thrown his hat in fully with the EU, expecting that the EU will fix things. More and more it is looking likely that they will not.

dsr wrote:It's also the Court's job to say whether or not the government is acting constitutionally. In view of the recent court decision about prorogation, there is the chance that the Supreme Court may decide that to ignore the referendum result would be unconstitutional and that the referendum was legally

2 supreme court judgements have reinforced the concept of "parliament is sovereign"

You are asking the supreme court to overturn it's own decisions.

Think about it eh?

Imploding Turtle wrote:I'm not saying the supreme court decision hasn't changed anything. I'm just not stupid enough to think that they made a political decision and not a legal decision.

They ruled based on the law, not politics.

This is how dishonest a person you are. You know that i never claimed the supreme court ruling hasn't changed anything, yet that's the argument against my point you're trying to make because you know you can't argue against what it is I actually said. When you stop doing this then maybe your opinions will be worth something to any political or legal debate, but until then you will always be treated with the complete contempt your dishonesty deserves, except by those who are equally as dishonest as you, or those who are just too stupid to notice it.

I'll keep it simple.

1. Before the Supreme Court verdict on prorogation, I said that no referendum could be legally binding.
2. After the Supreme Court verdict on prorogation, said that maybe the Supreme Court ruling has changed things.

And you mocked, you scoffed, you patronised, you swore, because you thought it was inconsistent of me to slightly change my views.

Do you understand? I'm not asking whether you agree my point, but do you understand it?

dsr wrote:I'll keep it simple.

1. Before the Supreme Court verdict on prorogation, I said that no referendum could be legally binding.
2. After the Supreme Court verdict on prorogation, said that maybe the Supreme Court ruling has changed things.

And you mocked, you scoffed, you patronised, you swore, because you thought it was inconsistent of me to slightly change my views.

Do you understand? I'm not asking whether you agree my point, but do you understand it?

You haven’t understood the ruling or what the Supreme Court do I’m afraid.

Although the ROI are strongly against an expiry date on the backstop they might just decide that it is better than a no-deal outcome. This possibility is definitely still on the table.

Mala591 wrote:Although the ROI are strongly against an expiry date on the backstop they might just decide that it is better than a no-deal outcome. This possibility is definitely still on the table.

On the table with who? Boris ‘we must ditch the backstop’ Johnson or the EU that have already rejected the idea?

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're never going to get it. You will always think that the EU are the ones who should make concessions to us despite it making absolutely no ******* negotiating sense since their hand is far stronger than ours. There's no reasoning with someone like you.

It’s hard to keep up but what concessions have the EU made, you know, as they are our friends and are looking to make a deal that is agreeable to everyone?

martin_p wrote:On the table with who? Boris ‘we must ditch the backstop’ Johnson or the EU that have already rejected the idea?

Yes you're right. What I should have said is UNDER the table and labelled 'only to be opened in a national emergency'.

martin_p wrote:On the table with who? Boris ‘we must ditch the backstop’ Johnson or the EU that have already rejected the idea?

The EU have not rejected the deal, you may think/believe they will but they have not unless something happened in the last couple of hours.

Please try to remember this presented as a an offer, showing a positive move and some idea how to move forward for all and avoid no deal. It has been clearly stated we now wait for the EU to review and then we will sit down and work through the EU's issues to see if an agreement comes out of this.

Has it been rejected out of hand by the EU NO, will it be rejected in its current form almost certainly, is it a basis to get the EU to the table and off there stance of "no meaningful proposal has been presented by the UK and we are still waiting for this" stance, YES

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're never going to get it. You will always think that the EU are the ones who should make concessions to us despite it making absolutely no ******* negotiating sense since their hand is far stronger than ours. There's no reasoning with someone like you.

I dont think the EU have to make concessions at all, and neither do we, I still think they both will though.
I'm happy to walk away with WTO as the way forward, if they dont want to deal then lets just get on with it. At least we'll know where we stand. The only thing that matters is we leave. The rest will take care of itself. Not because I'm an eternal optimist, but because that is the natural order. When push comes to shove people take the necessary steps, we will, they will. I still haven't got my head around what it is I'm supposed to panic about.

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're never going to get it. You will always think that the EU are the ones who should make concessions to us despite it making absolutely no ******* negotiating sense since their hand is far stronger than ours. There's no reasoning with someone like you.

“There’s no reasoning with someone like you” which begs the question why do you persist if that is indeed the case, would it not be more appropriate to articulate more constructive responses or is that to difficult, plenty of straightforward common sense is being directed but not absorbed.

KateR wrote:The EU have not rejected the deal, you may think/believe they will but they have not unless something happened in the last couple of hours.

Please try to remember this presented as a an offer, showing a positive move and some idea how to move forward for all and avoid no deal. It has been clearly stated we now wait for the EU to review and then we will sit down and work through the EU's issues to see if an agreement comes out of this.

Has it been rejected out of hand by the EU NO, will it be rejected in its current form almost certainly, is it a basis to get the EU to the table and off there stance of "no meaningful proposal has been presented by the UK and we are still waiting for this" stance, YES

I was talking about a time limited backstop as suggested by the poster I was replying to.

Colburn_Claret wrote:I dont think the EU have to make concessions at all, and neither do we, I still think they both will though.
I'm happy to walk away with WTO as the way forward, if they dont want to deal then lets just get on with it. At least we'll know where we stand. The only thing that matters is we leave. The rest will take care of itself. Not because I'm an eternal optimist, but because that is the natural order. When push comes to shove people take the necessary steps, we will, they will. I still haven't got my head around what it is I'm supposed to panic about.

People can take the ‘necessary steps’ to protect against a hurricane, doesn’t mean they avoid damage.

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I see above a comment suggesting that the Tories had decided to leave at all costs?

Actually, it was the UK public who decided to leave at all costs (i.e. regardless of costs) in 2016.

Leaving in a way that maximises value is of course what we should strive for, but Leave has been 100% decided, whatever the cost.

It was me who said that, and I was reflecting the relative policies of each party today. Whether you think that was as a result of a mandate from the people is not important in that sense. You just agreed with me.

I happen to totally disagree however, that this approach was mandated by the referendum. Their policy of "leave at all costs" was just about as far away from the rhetoric of the leave campaign as possible in 2016. It was all about how damn easy a deal would be to make.

There shouldn't be a problem with a backstop at all to be perfectly honest.

The only reason the UK wants it time limited is that they are afraid the tech they say exists doesn't actually exist in the format they want it to.

I've no confidence in fully technological border being implemented from scratch, though there is no doubt that its probably possible, but not in the time scale that the UK Govt wants.

A long time limit on the back stop (10 years?) might be the solution though.

And can we please stop pretending the following

- No Deal won't be a problem

- WTO rules are perfectly fine

All it does is highlight that people haven't actually bothered/had the time to to study what both realistically mean, which does tend to devalue any arguments you have somewhat!

People do tend to forget that all imports /exports from giant economies like China /India/USA/ multiple South America’s and Africa are already done on WTO .( it’s generally 6% import duty) And the EU main players Germany /France //Italy /Spain know damn well that by reverting to WTO when dealing with U.K. is a 2 way street and some kind of trade deal would inevitably be thrashed out in the sectors which attract higher duties .

Then if you are correct, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

It amazing that anyone bothers with FTAs and trading blocks anymore isn't it?

or maybe?

Just maybe its not as simple so you can describe it in a paragraph on a football messageboard?

I know!

Mad isn't it

Its quite a lot more complicated than that

Back to the deal

The analysis of the actual deal is cracking on and of course, the more it is scrutinised, the more problems arise.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/11 ... 8062353408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AlargeClaret wrote:People do tend to forget that all imports /exports from giant economies like China /India/USA/ multiple South America’s and Africa are already done on WTO .( it’s generally 6% import duty) And the EU main players Germany /France //Italy /Spain know damn well that by reverting to WTO when dealing with U.K. is a 2 way street and some kind of trade deal would inevitably be thrashed out in the sectors which attract higher duties .

I know you're not saying otherwise, but people also tend to forget that we already trade with all these giant countries on WTO rules as part of the EU.And that after Brexit, the UK will represent a much smaller market than when it was part of the EU - and that means it will often have less power in trade negotiations.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Then if you are correct, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

It amazing that anyone bothers with FTAs and trading blocks anymore isn't it?

or maybe?

Just maybe its not as simple so you can describe it in a paragraph on a football messageboard?

I know!

Mad isn't it
Its quite a lot more complicated than that

Of course it’s more complicated than that . Though with a few notable exceptions motor industry etc fruit/veg it’s not so much the trade and prices it’s the ease of free fluid movement of goods that the EU gives not to mention that countries like Italy and Germany are huge gateways for non Eu imports which are then traded /sold /moved throughout the EU with ease and speed . And goods traded WTO while often way cheaper can be real bottleneck which is the downside imo ( “in my opinion”as opposed to a trading block !)

willsclarets wrote:I know you're not saying otherwise, but people also tend to forget that we already trade with all these giant countries on WTO rules as part of the EU.And that after Brexit, the UK will represent a much smaller market than when it was part of the EU - and that means it will often have less power in trade negotiations.

You’re quite right , and it would be insane to say moving all to WTO would be better , it clearly wouldn’t . Though my general point being it’s not quite the nasty Fagin like beast lurking in the shadows that it’s being compared to in some quarters

AlargeClaret wrote:Of course it’s more complicated than that . Though with a few notable exceptions motor industry etc fruit/veg it’s not so much the trade and prices it’s the ease of free fluid movement of goods that the EU gives not to mention that countries like Italy and Germany are huge gateways for non Eu imports which are then traded /sold /moved throughout the EU with ease and speed . And goods traded WTO while often way cheaper can be real bottleneck which is the downside imo ( “in my opinion”as opposed to a trading block !)

But again, you are trying to simplify it into a paragraph. You just can't pretend that its "fine"

Economically, this whole thing is a really bad idea.

- Rolled over deals from the EU )Switzerland and South Korea (very well done by the UK on the 2nd one btw, big win that, first one fairly routine because of Swiss position and economic outlook) plus some minor ones

- none rolled over deals - Japan, and a pretty much every other major one.

- add what wills is saying about us having less clout because when we leave we automatically become less attractive as a market as its much smaller

Its not a good position to be in

Add that to a potential "No Deal" scenario and countries will be demanding trade concessions that we'd never give but we might have to because of the position we would be in.

And its back to the elephant in the room.

The USA

The FTA bunch think Trump can't wait to give us a fair better deal than anything we have with the EU.

This flies in the face of the reality of President Trump actions and deeds when it comes to trade.

Then throw in their support for the GFA, and we have big problems.

EDITED for appalling spelling!

AlargeClaret wrote:You’re quite right , and it would be insane to say moving all to WTO would be better , it clearly wouldn’t . Though my general point being it’s not quite the nasty Fagin like beast lurking in the shadows that it’s being compared to in some quarters

But it is compared to what we have now. That is kinda the whole point of my post!

AlargeClaret wrote:People do tend to forget that all imports /exports from giant economies like China /India/USA/ multiple South America’s and Africa are already done on WTO .( it’s generally 6% import duty) And the EU main players Germany /France //Italy /Spain know damn well that by reverting to WTO when dealing with U.K. is a 2 way street and some kind of trade deal would inevitably be thrashed out in the sectors which attract higher duties .

This is is just totally incorrect.