Brexit Negotiations

[hoolahoop]

I see Sturgeon has piped up demanding the same for Scotland, and claiming if they left the UK there's no way we could tell them there'd be no hard border, totally ignoring the historical context of the Irish problem. God I hate that woman. Wilfully ignorant of anything that doesn't suit her sole cause.

Someone should tell her that the Independence Referendum voted to stay as part of the UK . Tell her and the others "its democracy get over it" .

That's what the people who voted to leave the EU keep telling those who voted to remain "get over it its democracy" However the ones pushing for the EU Referendum in the first place kept going going going as indeed will the SNP till they get the result that they desire

Wolfie she is a proud Scot trying to get an "edge" out of all this - I have a lot of sympathy with the SNP because a lot of my family support independence.

If Scotland doesn't get " freedom of movement " it will slowly decline economically. It needs people and it needs the SM and the CU .

We all argue that the UK needs both these things but moan when the leader of Scotland wants the same ?
I am not a Unionist , Scotland is a country with it's own history and it's own right to exist or have people who want to be separate.  What is everyone's problem with this desire ? We moan that we have to subsidise them ......so cut them free when and if they decide they want it . The last time everyone and everybody was reeled out to persuade them they would lose the benefits of being in the EU !

Oh the irony and how pissed off many of them are now.

[hoolahoop]

I’ll translate from Bullshit into English:

“We don’t really know how to get a situation where UK is out of SM and CU but there’s no hard border in Ireland. So we’ll give ourselves time to think about it. And if we can’t come up with a solution (which we won’t be able to do) then NI will stay inside the SM and CU. Which means GB will stay inside the SM and CU. Which will tear the Tory party apart. Or GB doesn’t stay inside. Which means there’ll be a border in the Irish Sea. Which will tear NI apart. So. As you were. No nearer sorting this out. We’ve put the inevitable crisis off for 18 months. But it’ll come...”

Excellent translation so it's as we were then nothing really agreed yet.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Very simple why the Tory Brexiters haven’t kicked up a stink.

There is no alternative.

They have postured about being prepared to go for a no deal Brexit, but they know like anyone who has looked at the issue knows, that would be an economic catastrophe.

And they know that if they reject this act of can-kicking, the EU cannot move on to trade negotiations. So we’d be heading for a no deal Brexit.

Their bluff has been called. Plain and simple, and actually, well done to May for making a right call on that aspect.

But the problem is, May is only deferring the moment of crisis for the Tory party. The Brexiters are holding their tongues for now, but eventually they will let rip.

My take?

We WILL be staying in the CU and SM because there is patently no alternative. Whether that’s staying in officially or tying ourselves so tightly to it that we have no room for independent action really makes no odds.

Accept that and everything becomes relatively manageable (at least the least-awful outcomes become possible). But doing that will mean that the Brexiters will shout “Betrayal” (once the deal is done) and the whole f**king mess will continue for another generation.

[RedJ]

I don't hate her for her belief. I hate her because she's a grievance monkey. For her, it's independence at all costs, and she - as Salmond did before her - tries to be all things to all people. Yet she's head of a movement that has a very nasty element to it that south of the border we don't hear much about. And absolutely anything, she'll use to get independence. Regardless of whether or not it's actually good for the people she represents. Even they're getting sick of her, she's lost their majority at Holyrood, she's losing ground at Westminster... All of which is no doubt, to her, grounds for another referendum.

In fact the SNP are an awful lot like the Brexiteers. Tried to sell people a dream that just didn't add up - only the people of Scotland were smart enough not to buy it. Salmond was Scotland's answer to Nigel Farage.

That's not me saying they should never be independent (though I don't particularly want it to happen as I intend to move there in the coming years), but the Yes movement was a crock of shit, just like the Leave campaign.

[The Red Baron]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/12/nick-clegg-is-right-we-need-a-second-brexit-referendum/

I have to say I can appreciate the writer's sentiments. If we are going to end up staying in the SM and CU (and given the outcome of Phase 1 I think that is likely, you have to question what the benefit is of leaving the EU at all.

We won't be able to control immigration from the EU, we'll still be paying in large sums every year and we won't be able to cut our own trade deals.

[RedJ]

Yes I fully agree call the whole thing off.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

Aye. There’s a depressing air of inevitability about the whole thing.

You can make the case that we’d be better off out of the CU and SM (although no one has done beyond blithe assertions that it’ll be alright).

But there is absolutely no alternative that doesn’t wreck the Good Friday Agreement. Which many folk pointed out 18 months ago and were told that we were scaremongering.

By the way, I’ve just been listening to PM on R4. Three people commenting on today’s agreement. A Hard Brexiteer. A Remainer. A BBC correspondent. All three called this agreement “a fudge”.

What a f**king mess. An emotional spasm encouraged by political bullshit merchants which has led us into an utter shambles.

[IDM]

So 18 months after the referendum and we still don't know what we were actually voting for..

the expression "rolling goat f**k" springs to mind..

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nah IDM

Brexit means Brexit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/krishgm/status/939052269093388288

[wilts rover]

So just to summarise today's announcement - we have promised to pay the EU £40 billion pounds and agreed that NI will follow their rules forever (if we can't agree anything different) all for the privilege of being allowed to enter into talks about a trade deal with them.

And that took 6 months!

[MachoMadness]

What about all the people who claim joint NI/Irish citizenship? Will we have 2 separate laws to decide what to do with them? Will British law be applied first if it doesn't match up exactly with ROI/EU law? You'd assume so, given taking back control and all that, but I'd also imagine having 2 sets of laws to govern one person could get very messy. Will they be classed as EU  citizens living in the UK now?

[RedJ]

This could very well be the first step along the road to a united Ireland.

[BillyStubbsTears]

This could very well be the first step along the road to a united Ireland.

Not a chance of that happening in my lifetime. You underestimate how implacably opposes the Unionists are if you think we’re remotely close to that outcome.

[RedJ]

I didn't say it was close though. Just that it could potentially, ultimately lead us down that path.

[Glyn_Wigley]

TRB

Very simple why the Tory Brexiters haven’t kicked up a stink.

There is no alternative.

They have postured about being prepared to go for a no deal Brexit, but they know like anyone who has looked at the issue knows, that would be an economic catastrophe.

And they know that if they reject this act of can-kicking, the EU cannot move on to trade negotiations. So we’d be heading for a no deal Brexit.

Their bluff has been called. Plain and simple, and actually, well done to May for making a right call on that aspect.

But the problem is, May is only deferring the moment of crisis for the Tory party. The Brexiters are holding their tongues for now, but eventually they will let rip.

My take?

We WILL be staying in the CU and SM because there is patently no alternative. Whether that’s staying in officially or tying ourselves so tightly to it that we have no room for independent action really makes no odds.

Accept that and everything becomes relatively manageable (at least the least-awful outcomes become possible). But doing that will mean that the Brexiters will shout “Betrayal” (once the deal is done) and the whole f**king mess will continue for another generation.

Perhaps they'll shout for a new referendum? Or perhaps not, now people have a much better idea of what it really means!

[MachoMadness]

One glaring statement that got swept under the rug in all the fuss about this deal...

Laura Kuenssberg‏Verified account
@bbclaurak
Follow Follow @bbclaurak
More
DUP-'We cautioned the Prime Minister about proceeding with this agreement in its present form given the issues which still need to be resolved and the views expressed to us by many of her own party colleagues.  However, it was ultimately a matter for the Prime Minister to decide'

So the DUP aren't happy about it, presumably because of the whole NI citizens remaining in the EU part. Consider the can firmly kicked down the road, then.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Here's a weird one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42291191

Is Gove saying the negotiations still won't have been concluded when the next election happens, or is he thinking the electorate will still swallow his b*llocks and that the UK can suddenly welsh on any deal him and his omnishambles chums have cobbled together and signed in the meantime?

[hoolahoop]

Young people might like to question the older generations as to why they are so keen to turn their back on the high principles of the Treaty of Rome

..............................................................

The Preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts


Who in their right mind in Britain or the EU would put their trust in assurances from Treeza May, Boris, Gove, IDS, or any of her gang of Brexit Ministers ?


What exactly are their principles and where is the evidence ?

[hoolahoop]

If Remain orientated politicians got together to design a brexit that would make it seem that they were trying to leave in order to appease their leave factions - this would be it.
As a guarantor of the GFA, the  UK needed to avoid a hard border. Failure to do so would cost them hugely in future trade talks with the US where some seem to suggest all the answers to our failing economy lie.

This framework is Remain in all but name. The ' Open ' border will allow freedom of movement. (Not to work or claim benefits just to make sure that UK/EU couples can travel unimpeded). Note the wording has moved from 'regulatory convergence' to 'full regulatory alignment'. This means that the UK will not deviate from EU trade law without permission, and will implement EU law changes without having any more say in them.

Also, for the first time ever the words '' level playing field '' are in this agreement. This means that the UK cannot ' diverge ' on tariffs or engage in practices like produce/ product dumping etc.

It is the SOFTEST  of soft brexit. I'm not surprised that Farage and his buddies are fuming. It leaves the door wide open for the UK to return.

[Donnywolf]

To your last sentence - GOOD !

[hoolahoop]

Nah IDM

Brexit means Brexit.

https://mobile.twitter.com/krishgm/status/939052269093388288

Well you certainly get a sense of Brexit , as Farage envisioned it from those tweets........NOT ! PMSL.

[hoolahoop]

They will try but there's no way committed Brexiters can put a spin on this being what they wanted Wolfie. I detest the man and hopefully, but I doubt it , we should see him slowly marginalised as the dream disappears in a puff off smoke. This is just the end of the beginning ........ The real fun and games are to come !

[BillyStubbsTears]

What Gove says means exactly what you want it to mean. Objective reality is not his strong point. He’s all about convincing people that they can live in blissful ignorance and not worry about the reality.

Like his mate Johnson.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jdportes/status/939144471966633984

[Filo]

Young people might like to question the older generations as to why they are so keen to turn their back on the high principles of the Treaty of Rome

..............................................................

The Preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts


Who in their right mind in Britain or the EU would put their trust in assurances from Treeza May, Boris, Gove, IDS, or any of her gang of Brexit Ministers ?


What exactly are their principles and where is the evidence ?

UK was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome

[Glyn_Wigley]

Young people might like to question the older generations as to why they are so keen to turn their back on the high principles of the Treaty of Rome

..............................................................

The Preamble to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

DETERMINED to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe,

RESOLVED to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers which divide Europe,

AFFIRMING as the essential objective of their efforts the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples,

RECOGNISING that the removal of existing obstacles calls for concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition,

ANXIOUS to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by reducing the differences existing between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions,

DESIRING to contribute, by means of a common commercial policy, to the progressive abolition of restrictions on international trade,

INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

RESOLVED by thus pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty, and calling upon the other peoples of Europe who share their ideal to join in their efforts


Who in their right mind in Britain or the EU would put their trust in assurances from Treeza May, Boris, Gove, IDS, or any of her gang of Brexit Ministers ?


What exactly are their principles and where is the evidence ?

UK was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome

Yes we were, on 22 January 1972. You don't get into the EU without signing it.

[Filo]

The post mentioned 1957

[Glyn_Wigley]

The post mentioned 1957

So what? That's when it was first written. We signed it in 1972. Are you saying that because we didn't sign it in 1957 it means we didn't agree with everything that's in it that Hoola quoted when we did sign it? Perhaps we signed it with our fingers crossed behind our back!

[Filo]

The post mentioned 1957

So what? That's when it was first written. We signed it in 1972. Are you saying that because we didn't sign it in 1957 it means we didn't agree with everything that's in it that Hoola quoted when we did sign it? Perhaps we signed it with our fingers crossed behind our back!

Perhaps we did, but theres no need to be clever about it, which is symptomatic of many of your condescending posts. I was pointing out that in 1957 we were not a signatory of it, in fact we were n't allowed to join until De Gaulle died, they did n't want us to join and now they don't want us to leave


The facts are, the UK never did and never have signed the Treaty of Rome.

In 1972 the UK signed the Treaty of Accesion

[Glyn_Wigley]

The post mentioned 1957

So what? That's when it was first written. We signed it in 1972. Are you saying that because we didn't sign it in 1957 it means we didn't agree with everything that's in it that Hoola quoted when we did sign it? Perhaps we signed it with our fingers crossed behind our back!

Perhaps we did, but theres no need to be clever about it, which is symptomatic of many of your condescending posts. I was pointing out that in 1957 we were not a signatory of it, in fact we were n't allowed to join until De Gaulle died, they did n't want us to join and now they don't want us to leave


The facts are, the UK never did and never have signed the Treaty of Rome.

In 1972 the UK signed the Treaty of Accesion

So Parliament's got it's facts wrong has it?

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/importexport/overview/europe/

As I said, you can't join the EU without signing the Treaty Of Rome.

And you never said anything about 1957, you flatly stated the UK were not a signatory of the Treaty Of Rome.

[Filo]

The post mentioned 1957

So what? That's when it was first written. We signed it in 1972. Are you saying that because we didn't sign it in 1957 it means we didn't agree with everything that's in it that Hoola quoted when we did sign it? Perhaps we signed it with our fingers crossed behind our back!

Perhaps we did, but theres no need to be clever about it, which is symptomatic of many of your condescending posts. I was pointing out that in 1957 we were not a signatory of it, in fact we were n't allowed to join until De Gaulle died, they did n't want us to join and now they don't want us to leave


The facts are, the UK never did and never have signed the Treaty of Rome.

In 1972 the UK signed the Treaty of Accesion

So Parliament's got it's facts wrong has it?

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/tradeindustry/importexport/overview/europe/

As I said, you can't join the EU without signing the Treaty Of Rome.

And you never said anything about 1957, you flatly stated the UK were not a signatory of the Treaty Of Rome.

I think you need to read that again, it is clearly about signing the Treaty of Accesion, which accepts the terms of the Treaty of Rome, you cannot be a signatory of a Treaty if you were n't present at that Treaty, which was my initial comment, the UK was not a signatory of the Treaty of Rome, sometimes Glyn you need to step down from that know it all high horse you ride very often!