[Politics] Brexit

[pastafarian]

The EU published their position paper on this on 12th June, ahead of Theresa May's statement. And when May finally got round to her statement (please note it was just a flimsy statement and not a paper...and we all know what a brilliant public speaker she is) she called on the EU to publish theirs and match hers. The EU reply was "er, we did, and er, it not only matches yours it goes further." How amateur can a PM get?

They published the guidelines on 29th April 2017 at 13.50
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brexit-guidelines/

After Article 50, not before as Jim seems to think.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sigh. I thought we'd moved on from this nonsense.

Hardly nonsense when it's true. Regardless, care to show me a copy of the EU divorce bill ?

 

[Jim in the West]

They published the guidelines on 29th April 2017 at 13.50
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/04/29-euco-brexit-guidelines/

After Article 50, not before as Jim seems to think.

Just to be clear - I didn't say that. My point (which I've clarified) is that we knew the way the EU was likely to work, based on previous negotiations BEFORE TRIGGERING ARTICLE 50 - but we ignored this information. Of course we ignored everything else, as well. At the end of the day WE asked to leave. Blaming the EU is a bit rich when they didn't ask for this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Hardly nonsense when it's true. Regardless, care to show me a copy of the EU divorce bill ?

Have a good night.

 

[Jim in the West]

One where we pay for access to the single market. One where the ECJ holds sway over our own courts. One where we can't set our own tax rates such as VAT.

An outcome where we retain access to the most successful trading black in the World would be immeasurably better than a No Deal outcome.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

An outcome where we retain access to the most successful trading black in the World would be immeasurably better than a No Deal outcome.

North Korea (every county in the world) has 'access' to the EU single market. [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] bottled the question so I'll try you. What are your red lines for a no deal (assuming there are any)?

 

[Baldseagull]

Not seen anyone suggest 'no deal' is good news - just that it is better than a bad deal and might be necessary.

If we leave with no deal, I think we will very quickly go back to the table and do a bad deal, or a series of bad deals.

 

[WATFORD zero]

North Korea (every county in the world) has 'access' to the EU single market. [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] bottled the question so I'll try you. What are your red lines for a no deal (assuming there are any)?

So, just to be clear, you've managed, through your own stupidity, to put yourself in a no win situation.

And now you want to know what I'm going to do about it

 

[JC Footy Genius]

So, just to be clear, you've managed, through your own stupidity, to put yourself in a no win situation.

And now you want to know what I'm going to do about it

To be clear you can't answer a straightforward question (apparently no #teameu types can) but continually revert to insults instead ..

 

[pastafarian]

Would you be prepared to accept any deal over a no deal option, if no what would be your red lines in rejecting the deal?

Seems like a reasonable enough question.
Wonder why its so difficult to answer?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Seems like a reasonable enough question.
Wonder why its so difficult to answer?

Best guess.. insulting or stereotyping is easier than coming up with coherent arguments ..

 

[Hampster Gull]

An outcome where we retain access to the most successful trading black in the World would be immeasurably better than a No Deal outcome.

Indeed however there are people who don't rate highly the need for the people of this country to prosper, who would prefer their community, friends and family to be poorer and for the country to move to the fringes of world decision makers in order to be, well, who knows

 

[CheeseRolls]

To be clear you can't answer a straightforward question (apparently no #teameu types can) but continually revert to insults instead ..

Just because a question is straightforward doesn't mean the answer is.

If you chose not to be punched in the face by Anthony Joshua, which current heavyweight would you choose to punch you in the face?

(Hint go for Hughie Fury, his fights often go the distance and you will probably only lose a couple of teeth)

Just after May's coughing speech, Eddie Mair toyed with Amber Rudd on R4 PM. One of the questions she couldn't answer was - Given a general election victory legitimises a manifesto for the duration of a parliament, at what point does the referendum vote expire?

I know your answer to this question already as per Article 50. I just don't believe it can and will happen, unless there is a compromise deal. I have no idea what a compromise deal can and would look like (which makes it difficult to answer a simple question) and again this can be read two ways. Our plucky government is playing a brilliant game of bluff and counter bluff and will emerge with a last minute deal that will set us on our way for the next decades....or we have a disorganised, discordant government in disarray, who are negotiating from a weak base and will fall apart before 2019.

Incidentally McDonnell says labour will deliver a better Brexit. Would you get behind a socialist Brexit, especially one with a strong 5 year parliamentary mandate? theoretical question of course.

 

[Dave the OAP]

I think you have missed the point. There are people on both sides of this argument who frankly have come across as thick through some ridiculous comments and then there are those who are just callous.

There are 3.2 million people in this country. People who came here for legitimate reasons, legally chose to build a life in this country. Now many have to live with an uncertain futures as our government treats them as political pawns.

Whining about money and playing the victim about intransigence, completely misses the point that these human beings deserve some assurances.

Unless you believe that foreigners are somehow worth less than English men. This is not a reasonable and open negotiating stance.

I read an article the other day that suggested the EU's position of people who have settled here from Europe must have recourse to the European Courts as the highest authority, over the UK courts. As much as I support the people who have come here over the years and believe they should all be guaranteed British residents rights, I cannot see how this can be squared.

If you move to america, you don't have the thought that you can ignore US law and just follow UK laws and your courts would overturn local laws just for you. It's ridiculous.

I personally thing the EU are dragging this out, knowing that we cannot possibly agree to some of their requirements after all, what do they care...we are the ones leaving with NO plan apart from platitudes that people are queuing up to trade with us.

 

[CheeseRolls]

I read an article the other day that suggested the EU's position of people who have settled here from Europe must have recourse to the European Courts as the highest authority, over the UK courts. As much as I support the people who have come here over the years and believe they should all be guaranteed British residents rights, I cannot see how this can be squared.

If you move to america, you don't have the thought that you can ignore US law and just follow UK laws and your courts would overturn local laws just for you. It's ridiculous.

I personally thing the EU are dragging this out, knowing that we cannot possibly agree to some of their requirements after all, what do they care...we are the ones leaving with NO plan apart from platitudes that people are queuing up to trade with us.

On the face of it, this is not a reasonable request, but a deal for settlers to stay here in 2017, could be revoked by incoming Prime Minister Farage in 2022. After all we want our sovereignty back, along with bananas of all shapes and sizes and strangely there is a lack of trust here.

 

[beorhthelm]

On the face of it, this is not a reasonable request, but a deal for settlers to stay here in 2017, could be revoked by incoming Prime Minister Farage in 2022.

applying that logic any deal could be reneged on by either side in the future. the suggestion that foreign citizens would come under jurisdiction of a foreign court is an affront to basic concepts of sovereignty. ask would the EU apply the same to UK citizens in EU? of course not. i'm not sure its a real demand, either a position to concede "look how much we've given away" or misinterpretation. another contentious point is the EU citizens have the right to vote, which doesn't even apply to them now. again, is this just a position to be negotiated away? seems there's alot of this, the EU asking things they must know politically and even morally they cant expect to achieve. interesting view is that current stalemate is because Barnier doesnt have any real negotiating power, he has a mandate to agree and sign off an exit deal. he cant offer or concede anything with out consulting with EU leaders, so until the next EU summit he's stuck.

 

[Jim D]

applying that logic any deal could be reneged on by either side in the future. the suggestion that foreign citizens would come under jurisdiction of a foreign court is an affront to basic concepts of sovereignty. ask would the EU apply the same to UK citizens in EU? of course not. i'm not sure its a real demand, either a position to concede "look how much we've given away" or misinterpretation. another contentious point is the EU citizens have the right to vote, which doesn't even apply to them now. again, is this just a position to be negotiated away? seems there's alot of this, the EU asking things they must know politically and even morally they cant expect to achieve. interesting view is that current stalemate is because Barnier doesnt have any real negotiating power, he has a mandate to agree and sign off an exit deal. he cant offer or concede anything with out consulting with EU leaders, so until the next EU summit he's stuck.

Why do you think that the EU demanded that we reach agreement on citizenship and divorce bill before we can move on? It's obviously because they realise that these are almost impossible to agree and they expected us to cave in to their demands in our eagerness to move on. The Irish border is just impossible to agree before we know what the trading arrangements will be. If we can negotiate some sort of customs union deal then we should be able to keep the border open as now, but that would be impossible under a WTO deal.

 

[ManOfSussex]

applying that logic any deal could be reneged on by either side in the future. the suggestion that foreign citizens would come under jurisdiction of a foreign court is an affront to basic concepts of sovereignty.

You could, but the primary issue and concern is in regards to citizens already permanently residing here, not future migrants. Appeal rights to immigration decisions have recently been reduced by The Home Office to non-EU migrants coming here and concerns exist over these being applied to EU citizens already residing here post-Brexit. Plus there is the complete and utter, utter administrative omnishambles that is The Home Office which is both a legitimate concern to The EU in standing up for EU citizens here, as well as a position of strength to The EU should they want to complicate things. The Home Office is currently able to process about 50 immigration cases a day with current resources - less than 7000 staff. Their existing error rates are already above 10%, so best of luck to them successfully implementing Settled Status on top of all existing work - it will take years, with **** up after **** up and The EU know this.

 

[Lincoln Imp]

It's pretty difficult to imagine a deal worse than "No Deal".

Tory grandee Lawson is reported in the Times this morning as saying that "No Deal" has been the most likely outcome for some time.

 

[CheeseRolls]

applying that logic any deal could be reneged on by either side in the future. the suggestion that foreign citizens would come under jurisdiction of a foreign court is an affront to basic concepts of sovereignty. ask would the EU apply the same to UK citizens in EU? of course not. i'm not sure its a real demand, either a position to concede "look how much we've given away" or misinterpretation. another contentious point is the EU citizens have the right to vote, which doesn't even apply to them now. again, is this just a position to be negotiated away? seems there's alot of this, the EU asking things they must know politically and even morally they cant expect to achieve. interesting view is that current stalemate is because Barnier doesnt have any real negotiating power, he has a mandate to agree and sign off an exit deal. he cant offer or concede anything with out consulting with EU leaders, so until the next EU summit he's stuck.

That's not how deals get done, political leaders don't just throw their toys of the pram because they are affronted !