|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On January 29 2019 16:45 Zaros wrote:
Conservative backbenchers have come up with their own plan that at least unites both sides of the party, agreed by remainers like Nicky Morgan and Brexiteers such as Rees Mogg.
Will be an interesting day today for those following brexit.
https://news.sky.com/story/how-mps-will-try-to-change-course-of-brexit-this-week-11619654
Amendment A is led by Jeremy Corbyn, and would tell the government to allow time for a debate and vote on options to prevent a no-deal Brexit.
Amendment B is spearheaded by senior select committee chairs - Labour's Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper, and Conservative Nicky Morgan. It would tell the government to allow time for a bid to postpone Brexit by nine months - if it has not managed to get a deal ratified in parliament by the end of February.
Amendment C is by Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable. It would instruct the government to rule out a no-deal Brexit and begin preparations for another referendum.
Amendment E was the brainchild of Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland select committee Andrew Murrison. It "insists" the backstop has a time limit - 31 December 2021. However, he has since withdrawn his amendment after the government urged Tory MPs to back Amendment N (below).
Amendment F is tabled solely by Hilary Benn. He wants a series of non-binding votes to be held on different Brexit scenarios to figure out what there is consensus for in parliament.
Amendment G is led by Conservative backbencher and ex-attorney general Dominic Grieve. It would give MPs six full days to debate and vote on alternative Brexit options.
Amendment J is another cross-party effort by Mr Grieve, Mr Benn and the business select committee chair Rachel Reeves. It tells the government to ask the EU to delay Brexit if no deal has been passed in parliament by the end of February but gives no specification of how long for.
Amendment M is a bid by Conservative backbencher John Baron. It says MPs will reject the deal if it does not include a right for the UK to unilaterally quit the backstop.
Amendment N is led by Sir Graham Brady, chair of the group of Conservative MPs known as the 1922 committee. It requires the backstop to be "replaced with alternative arrangements". The prime minister is now urging Tory MPs to back this amendment in order to show the EU her Brexit deal will attract support, if the backstop is altered or removed.
So I wonder if these plans you write about Zaros will be put forward as additional amendments or if they would follow amandment N?
|
I think that hinges on the EU accepting the "better deal", which if I understand it correctly, places the Kingdom of Ireland in an exception position with regards to the EU, rather than Northern Ireland in an exception position with regards to the rest of the UK. So it seems unlikely the EU would accept that better deal. Moreover, it doesn't seem to respect the 4 freedoms, proposing a de facto customs union without free movement of people.
Also, I don't really get the fear mongering over the backstop. Insofar as I understand it, it's not something the EU can impose indefinitely. It's something that is there to ensure that as long as negotiations are ongoing, current rules are respected. If negotiations break down, the UK is free to end them, and default to WTO rules with no backstop. They cannot be "held hostage" by Spain over Gibraltar or by France over fishing rights, at least not any more than they can in any regular multi-party negotiation.
|
It's a joke and a half. It's insane by the UK to assume that the EU will now happily accept the deal considering they, throughout the discourse, made clear that this part isn't actually negotiable.
Comments like these here show how detached they are from reality.
“The prime minister has been aware of the discussions. At some point, there has to be compromise on all sides in order to get a deal over the line,” she said.
The backstop already was the compromise. We're, again, back to the UK wanting the good stuff, but god no, the bad stuff is unacceptable. As offer they "commit to pay the £39b", which is a prerequisite for anything afterwards anyway. For that they basically want a free-trade agreement, and assurance that basically they're not committing to anything, whereas the EU (and Ireland, for that matter) better hope that the UK keeps their "pinky promises".
Like, these are literally mentally challenged people not able to understand that this isn't how this works, and by this point, i'm actually hoping for the UK to crash out the EU. The UK has proven without a doubt that they're not able to indeed A: keep to commitments, B: are able and willing to spin their position on a dime, whim and in a day.
How do you even negotiate with someone who feels entitled to get all the good shit of someone, but isn't willing to budge on any of their "red lines"? You don't. That's why "all the great free trade deals we'll have on the 29th" is currently "well we have none" - and that won't change for a while, since the UK is vastly overestimating it's importance - and with that, actually wouldn't accept an actually fair deal. Gonna be fun to watch that clusterfuck once it gets going - probably as much fun as the people in the UK realising that trading on WTO rules indeed doesn't actually mean that they can trade however they want, quite the contrary.
Keep in mind, this is 60 days before the UK leaves. It's absolutely insane.
|
On January 29 2019 19:32 m4ini wrote:It's a joke and a half. It's insane by the UK to assume that the EU will now happily accept the deal considering they, throughout the discourse, made clear that this part isn't actually negotiable. Comments like these here show how detached they are from reality. Show nested quote +“The prime minister has been aware of the discussions. At some point, there has to be compromise on all sides in order to get a deal over the line,” she said. The backstop already was the compromise. We're, again, back to the UK wanting the good stuff, but god no, the bad stuff is unacceptable. As offer they "commit to pay the £39b", which is a prerequisite for anything afterwards anyway. For that they basically want a free-trade agreement, and assurance that basically they're not committing to anything, whereas the EU (and Ireland, for that matter) better hope that the UK keeps their "pinky promises". Like, these are literally mentally challenged people not able to understand that this isn't how this works, and by this point, i'm actually hoping for the UK to crash out the EU. The UK has proven without a doubt that they're not able to indeed A: keep to commitments, B: are able and willing to spin their position on a dime, whim and in a day. How do you even negotiate with someone who feels entitled to get all the good shit of someone, but isn't willing to budge on any of their "red lines"? You don't. That's why "all the great free trade deals we'll have on the 29th" is currently "well we have none" - and that won't change for a while, since the UK is vastly overestimating it's importance - and with that, actually wouldn't accept an actually fair deal. Gonna be fun to watch that clusterfuck once it gets going - probably as much fun as the people in the UK realising that trading on WTO rules indeed doesn't actually mean that they can trade however they want, quite the contrary. Keep in mind, this is 60 days before the UK leaves. It's absolutely insane.
Not only this, but Liam Fox (our international trade secretary - brexiter) has just made a statement to the effect that we can now blackmail EU countries again with the threat of no deal because Germany's economy has started to weaken.
We couldn't do it last time, it won't work this time. The level of delusion at play here is astounding.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
can't wait to get fucked over by US businesses because we are desperate to strike a trade deal with the US after we leave.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119
lowering standards on beef
lowering standards on agriculture
removing government price caps on NHS drugs
weakening drug approval processes
lengthening drug patent protections
removing the proposed tax on digital companies
removing requirement for local data storage
increasing the amount that triggers custom import duties
|
On January 29 2019 19:32 m4ini wrote:It's a joke and a half. It's insane by the UK to assume that the EU will now happily accept the deal considering they, throughout the discourse, made clear that this part isn't actually negotiable. Comments like these here show how detached they are from reality. Show nested quote +“The prime minister has been aware of the discussions. At some point, there has to be compromise on all sides in order to get a deal over the line,” she said. The backstop already was the compromise. We're, again, back to the UK wanting the good stuff, but god no, the bad stuff is unacceptable. As offer they "commit to pay the £39b", which is a prerequisite for anything afterwards anyway. For that they basically want a free-trade agreement, and assurance that basically they're not committing to anything, whereas the EU (and Ireland, for that matter) better hope that the UK keeps their "pinky promises". Like, these are literally mentally challenged people not able to understand that this isn't how this works, and by this point, i'm actually hoping for the UK to crash out the EU. The UK has proven without a doubt that they're not able to indeed A: keep to commitments, B: are able and willing to spin their position on a dime, whim and in a day. How do you even negotiate with someone who feels entitled to get all the good shit of someone, but isn't willing to budge on any of their "red lines"? You don't. That's why "all the great free trade deals we'll have on the 29th" is currently "well we have none" - and that won't change for a while, since the UK is vastly overestimating it's importance - and with that, actually wouldn't accept an actually fair deal. Gonna be fun to watch that clusterfuck once it gets going - probably as much fun as the people in the UK realising that trading on WTO rules indeed doesn't actually mean that they can trade however they want, quite the contrary. Keep in mind, this is 60 days before the UK leaves. It's absolutely insane.
If this is indeed something the UK will push for then I'm right there with you. And in such event, I really hope the EU will be able to come together and give RoI all the support they need. That this level of arrogance and stupidity isn't exclusive to the fringes is completely mind boggling.
|
On January 29 2019 19:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 19:32 m4ini wrote:It's a joke and a half. It's insane by the UK to assume that the EU will now happily accept the deal considering they, throughout the discourse, made clear that this part isn't actually negotiable. Comments like these here show how detached they are from reality. “The prime minister has been aware of the discussions. At some point, there has to be compromise on all sides in order to get a deal over the line,” she said. The backstop already was the compromise. We're, again, back to the UK wanting the good stuff, but god no, the bad stuff is unacceptable. As offer they "commit to pay the £39b", which is a prerequisite for anything afterwards anyway. For that they basically want a free-trade agreement, and assurance that basically they're not committing to anything, whereas the EU (and Ireland, for that matter) better hope that the UK keeps their "pinky promises". Like, these are literally mentally challenged people not able to understand that this isn't how this works, and by this point, i'm actually hoping for the UK to crash out the EU. The UK has proven without a doubt that they're not able to indeed A: keep to commitments, B: are able and willing to spin their position on a dime, whim and in a day. How do you even negotiate with someone who feels entitled to get all the good shit of someone, but isn't willing to budge on any of their "red lines"? You don't. That's why "all the great free trade deals we'll have on the 29th" is currently "well we have none" - and that won't change for a while, since the UK is vastly overestimating it's importance - and with that, actually wouldn't accept an actually fair deal. Gonna be fun to watch that clusterfuck once it gets going - probably as much fun as the people in the UK realising that trading on WTO rules indeed doesn't actually mean that they can trade however they want, quite the contrary. Keep in mind, this is 60 days before the UK leaves. It's absolutely insane. Not only this, but Liam Fox (our international trade secretary - brexiter) has just made a statement to the effect that we can now blackmail EU countries again with the threat of no deal because Germany's economy has started to weaken. We couldn't do it last time, it won't work this time. The level of delusion at play here is astounding.
just to put a quote on that:
"We've seen, for example, the German economy weakening, we've seen the French economy weakening, and I think this (EU) view that 'we can simply weather out any disturbance that would occur from a no deal', I think there's much less appetite for that."
I think it's astounding that this man still doesn't understand that the UK is negotiating to get the best deal they can, while the EU is negotiating to avoid a worst-case scenario. So what the two parties are looking for or setting out as goals is not necessarily the same. And that worst-case is not No-Deal. It's giving the UK a significantly better deal than any other country has gotten (Norway-style benefits while only having the commitments of Canada for example). With the UK leaving, Italy being Italy and rising nationalistic sentiment across the EU this would be so much worse for the EU than a No-Deal outcome and the politicians know that.
That has nothing to do with bullying or being mean with the UK, it's just keeping whatever kind of deal the UK gets in line with other deals to make sure noone gets the impression the UK got a better offer outside of the EU than they had inside the EU.
|
It all seems to come down to the situation in Ireland.
If uk leaves eu then eventually there has to be a border somewhere,i don't see any way around that other then a fake brexit.
There are 3 options for that border as I see it,the situation is not all that complicated.
-border between northern Ireland and the britisch mainland.
-border between northern Ireland and Ireland.
-border between Ireland and the eu.
These are the only options there are and eventually one of these options has to be chosen,sooner or later.
But all of the options are a make or break for either of the partys involved. The uk,the eu,northern Ireland and Ireland.
So I am kinda curious how they will come to a brexit,the only way to avoid making any of the above choices is to keep postponing the actual brexit.
|
It's pretty odd that some MP's have brought into their own slogans and think thatnot only is no deal is better than a "bad" deal, but that Germany alone is negotiating on behalf of the EU or that the UK is in a stronger bargaining position.
Anyhow these "amendments" are topics on brexit that should had been debated long ago, not as a last ditch 2 months before a deadline effort. Interesting to note that some of these admendments don't seem to recognise the EU as a seperate negotiator.
|
If we scrap the border between Ireland and the eu,because that seems to be the least realistic option then it has to be one of the other 2 options. It kinda is up to the uk to make a choice between those 2.
Europe would prefer the border between northern Ireland and the uk mainland off course but I think in the end this is 100% britains choice to make. (though they are bound by the good Friday treaty,limiting their options. but that basicly is not eu,s business)
But no one in british politics dares making the inevitable choice because no matter what choice is made,a lot of people will be very angry with it. Its a catch22 situation (not sure that phrase actually applies here),there is no way out other then postponing making this choice for as long as possible. But that would mean that the uk de facto remains inside the eu till that choice is made.
This is the one thing they should have told the people before voting about brexit. Its pretty obvious but maybe many voters did not realize the actual implications.
They should have informed all the voters that eventually there has to be a border and that eventually a choice between the above options will have to be made if they want to come to a real brexit.
A further delay of brexit seems the most plausible now to me,as I don't think the uk dares to make a choice between the 2 only options they have in the end.
Backstop is also just a further delay,it doesnt solve anything for anyone other then postponing making the actual choice and brexit indefinitly.
But eventually a choice has to be made to come to an actual brexit. Or a sort of brexit that avoids making the choice all together,the most soft brexit possible.
|
Grieve amendment and Cooper/Boles both defeated by the government, the big remainer amendments trying to stop No deal brexit both voted down by MPs quite easily in the end.
*Not really Nick Boles
|
In addition to the amendments mentioned in my previous post the following amendments have been tabled:
Amendment O (Ian Blackford, SNP) requires the government to ask for Article 50 to be extended and demands Scotland not be taken out of the EU given it voted to Remain
Amendment I (Caroline Spelman, Tory) amends amendment J at the end and adds “and rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.” thereby ruling out a no deal exit (advisory only).
Aye / Nay
Amendment A (Jeremy Corbyn, Labour) 296 / 327
Amendment O (Ian Blackford, SNP) 39 / 327
Amendment G (Dominic Grieve, Tory) 301 / 321
Amendment B (cross party) 298 / 321
Amendment J (cross party) 290 / 322
Amendment I (Caroline Spelman, Tory) 318 / 310
Amendment N (Sir Graham Brady, Tory) 317 / 301
|
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal.
|
Well, the EU won't budge.
Back to square one.
What a suprise
|
On January 30 2019 05:46 Zaros wrote:
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal. Again, what is the EU going to give? A border between Ireland and the rest of the EU will not happen. Its an EU nation.
The 4 freedoms are as ever non-negotiable.
What room is there for the EU to move?
The UK never thought about how a Brexit would handle Ireland and they still haven't.
|
On January 30 2019 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 05:46 Zaros wrote:
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal. Again, what is the EU going to give? A border between Ireland and the rest of the EU will not happen. Its an EU nation. The 4 freedoms are as ever non-negotiable. What room is there for the EU to move? The UK never thought about how a Brexit would handle Ireland and they still haven't.
If the EU doesn't want to budge thats fine, but if you want to avoid a hard border in Ireland then saying we have an agreement we are not going to change it, when MPs have quite painstakingly come together to vote for the one change they want you will end up driving the UK to a no deal exit and creating the very border you want to stop.
|
On January 30 2019 05:46 Zaros wrote:
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal.
What a surprise.
edit:
And again we have the typical brexiteers somehow assuming that because their MPs voted for change, change has indeed to happen - and if it doesn't, the EU is to blame.
Fact of the matter is, the EU will not compromise on certain things. Done. Why there's still debates about things that the EU made clear won't change is absolutely beyond me.
Imagine the shitstorm if the EU would do the same, just fucking with the "red lines" of the UK, because all 27 EU states decided that yeah, sure, you made clear plenty of times that you won't budge on certain things, but i mean.. That's merely a suggestion, no?
Lets start with freedom of movement. Bet that clusterfuck would be fun to watch.
|
|
|
On January 30 2019 06:10 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 30 2019 05:46 Zaros wrote:
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal. Again, what is the EU going to give? A border between Ireland and the rest of the EU will not happen. Its an EU nation. The 4 freedoms are as ever non-negotiable. What room is there for the EU to move? The UK never thought about how a Brexit would handle Ireland and they still haven't. If the EU doesn't want to budge thats fine, but if you want to avoid a hard border in Ireland then saying we have an agreement we are not going to change it, when MPs have quite painstakingly come together to vote for the one change they want you will end up driving the UK to a no deal exit and creating the very border you want to stop. As someone layed out earlier. there are 3 options.
A border between Ireland and the EU - Unacceptable because its an EU country
A border between Ireland and Northern Ireland - violates the good friday agreement? and the result of a hard Brexit.
A border between Northern Ireland and the UK - I assume the UK considers this unacceptable.
So there you have it, no deal is possible. Hard Brexit it is. Which the EU will accept because compromising is a worse situation for them and the UK can worry about how its going to avoid another 'troubles'.
the MP's havent voted for jack shit that I have seen.
What did the MPs actually decide today? What proposal did they put forward that meets the EU's clear and present position of no border between Ireland and the rest of the EU and no partial 4 freedoms?
Edit: the tweets about how this effects popular opinion within the UK are especially LOL worthy. The EU doesn't give a shit about the opinion of UK voters. The UK is leaving after all. If your politicians want to sell the people on a hard Brexit that's on them.
|
On January 30 2019 06:32 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2019 06:10 Zaros wrote:On January 30 2019 05:57 Gorsameth wrote:On January 30 2019 05:46 Zaros wrote:
This is a very good night for brexiteers/May, she can now go back to Brussels and make some demands with the backing of Parliament. If the EU doesn't agree MPs have also shown they don't have the ability to actually do something to stop No Deal. Again, what is the EU going to give? A border between Ireland and the rest of the EU will not happen. Its an EU nation. The 4 freedoms are as ever non-negotiable. What room is there for the EU to move? The UK never thought about how a Brexit would handle Ireland and they still haven't. If the EU doesn't want to budge thats fine, but if you want to avoid a hard border in Ireland then saying we have an agreement we are not going to change it, when MPs have quite painstakingly come together to vote for the one change they want you will end up driving the UK to a no deal exit and creating the very border you want to stop. As someone layed out earlier. there are 3 options. A border between Ireland and the EU - Unacceptable because its an EU country A border between Ireland and Northern Ireland - violates the good friday agreement? and the result of a hard Brexit. A border between Northern Ireland and the UK - I assume the UK considers this unacceptable. So there you have it, no deal is possible. Hard Brexit it is. Which the EU will accept because compromising is a worse situation for them and the UK can worry about how its going to avoid another 'troubles'. the MP's havent voted for jack shit that I have seen. What did the MPs actually decide today? What proposal did they put forward that meets the EU's clear and present position of no border between Ireland and the rest of the EU and no partial 4 freedoms? Edit: the tweets about how this effects popular opinion within the UK are especially LOL worthy. The EU doesn't give a shit about the opinion of UK voters. The UK is leaving after all. If your politicians want to sell the people on a hard Brexit that's on them.
Even Michel Barnier was talking about "technological Solutions" to not have a border in the event of hard brexit so its clearly not just those options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
