Can we build it around the Palace of Westminster, letting the MPs there declare themselves outside the EU while the rest of us just continue being part of the EU? It won't be too much effort to put a customs post on the gate, we'll charge high tariffs on their only export (loads of shit) and it'll create a new export market for bakers and patisseries.
FUCK YOU THERESA MAY
FUCK YOU DAVID CAMERON
FUCK YOU JACOB REES-MOGG
FUCK YOU EVERY FUCKING TORY MP
You are systematically fucking this once decent country*. You have blood on your hands. There will be more deaths, more blood. You are bleeding this country, destroying everything decent, for the sake of your own pockets. You will rot in hell, the very lowest circle.
*Not perfect, but decent.
No special mention for the lying, self-promoting Boris?
All the confusion is good for Treeza or so it seems. I think she believes if she can keep fudging, and delaying she can get her deal through. The closer we get to Brexit day the more people will worry about crashing out. If it comes to her deal or no deal she is betting on people picking her deal. Unfortunately there are enough politicians who want us to crash out that it daily becomes more a reality.
Would you stop calling it HER deal? It's a deal between 2 parties, and half the problem is that the whole of the UK seems bent on looking at the Prime Minister and acting as if she negotiated a deal with herself.
You want to talk about a wall between the UK and Europe, there's a psychological one already, whereby anything that happened on the Continent is invisible. Everyone seems to think that Theresa May walked behind a curtain, disappeared from view, and then reappeared months later.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
I could have included Johnson - I am jsut reading a bok which explains (among other things) how he is at the heart of Brexshit (even more so than Cameron). I just ran out of capitals.
And yes, he will be the clown in the lowest lowest circle of hell. Always joking, always ignored.
And when I say would "you" stop. That's a plural "you". Her deal. Her deal. I keep seeing that phrase.
Start calling it "the deal with the EU" and you might realise how goddamn stupid some of the statements about it sound.
I see your point and I understand your ire but it a really important sense it is her deal.
The EU has been clear at every stage that they will stick to EU law as laid down in the various treaties. As such the deal that we have (with some minor tweaks) is what is possible under EU law, given the Red Lines.
This is the key. The so-called Red Lines were very-much her decision. And as such the deal we have now between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the European Union (of 27 nations) is the inevitable consequence of Mrs May's decisions and the appropriate and obvious decision of the EU to follow EU law.
Other deals are possible if you remove the Red Lines. It really is the deal that Mrs May crafted.
May produced a deal done with the EU, which was what her government had a mandate to do. Has she done a good job? Not very. But she has come away with a deal, or more accurately a proposed withdrawal agreement including a transition period to iron out further details which I was actually relieved about.
My view as soon as this deal was on the table was that irrespective of how many dimensions of chess May is thought to be playing, it should be got behind in the national interest, and nothing in the interim period, which like the preceding 2 years the UK has largely frittered away, has changed my mind.
If it's not got behind, my forecast is that after a lot of upheaval the UK (or what parts of the Union are left...) will end up as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USA.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
And when I say would "you" stop. That's a plural "you". Her deal. Her deal. I keep seeing that phrase.
Start calling it "the deal with the EU" and you might realise how goddamn stupid some of the statements about it sound.
I see your point and I understand your ire but it a really important sense it is her deal.
The EU has been clear at every stage that they will stick to EU law as laid down in the various treaties. As such the deal that we have (with some minor tweaks) is what is possible under EU law, given the Red Lines.
This is the key. The so-called Red Lines were very-much her decision. And as such the deal we have now between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the European Union (of 27 nations) is the inevitable consequence of Mrs May's decisions and the appropriate and obvious decision of the EU to follow EU law.
Other deals are possible if you remove the Red Lines. It really is the deal that Mrs May crafted.
AFZ
Yes yes, other deals are possible so long as you try to make Brexit as non-exit as possible and pretend that the clusterfuck of a referendum didn't produce a meaningful result.
Which it probably didn't, frankly. I mean, millions of people probably didn't have a proper understanding of what they were voting for, and probably still wouldn't have understood even if there was a detailed proposal at hand.
But then, how are you supposed to develop a detailed proposal without the basic decision? Does anyone really think the EU would have agreed to spend so much time negotiating a hypothetical deal on the basis that, after all that, the UK public might have voted "no exit"? Let's get the lawyers to draw up the terms of divorce, but then we'll look at it and decide whether we want to divorce or stay together?
The Red Lines are basically the result of someone looking at the referendum result and believing that divorce does mean divorce, not continuing to live in the same house while claiming benefits at the single rate. Mind you, I've seen once on TV a divorced couple living in two halves of a single house, it was damn weird...
Yes, other deals are possible. But people usually decide to divorce and then realise all the detailed, awkward, messy consequences of that decision afterwards, rather than agreeing to only divorce if the terms look good.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Mrs May is seeking both to transfer the blame for any hard Brexit to the EU (for being obdurate) and try to keep the warring factions of the Tory Party under the same roof for a little bit longer at least.
I head a German commentator this morning say that the UK Parliament is clear about what it is against. A hard Brexit and the backstop. But what is it for? Specifically, being against the backstop requires some alternatives which would respect the unity of the EU 27 and protect the GFA. And after close to 2 years negotation, the backstop is the only mechanism the EU found which would keep the 27 united.
Being in the club, using all the facilities including the bar - and, of course - paying no fees and following none of the rules. Oh, and the ability to throw out anyone who isn’t ‘one of us’.
Why ever could THEY see that as a problem? Just give us what we want, simples. 🙄
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
It's a draft that needs both parties to agree. At the moment it doesn't exist as an international agreement between parties because one party (the British government) cannot legally sign up to it without consent of Parliament.
I know you don't like the Supreme Court or the way this has been done, but the fact remains that this is "the deal" that the PM has been able to agree with the EU.
Until Parliament agrees, it is nothing else but 'her' deal.
Please stop talking about No Deal as if it's a menu option or conditional on other things happening first.
It's.The.Default.
No Deal involves tearing up the GFA, it's not conditional on the GFA being torn up.
Yes.
And this is what is so frustrating - all the talk of "taking back control" now comes down to basically begging the EU for an extension to a self-imposed deadline when there is no obvious reason why they should.
The whole country is being held ransom to a decision of the EU that they don't really want to make - and more-likely-than-not will choose to abstain from making.
So far as I understand its position, the EU won't grant an extension unless there is an absolutely compelling reason to do so, a "compelling reason" meaning "a specific, detailed alternative acceptable to the EU-27 that will take a little more time to work through from the UK side". They won't grant an extension on any other grounds.
It reminds me of students begging for more time at the end of an exam they know lasts 2 hours.
I head a German commentator this morning say that the UK Parliament is clear about what it is against. A hard Brexit and the backstop. But what is it for?
You heard Theresa May say the exact same thing weeks ago.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
It's a draft that needs both parties to agree. At the moment it doesn't exist as an international agreement between parties because one party (the British government) cannot legally sign up to it without consent of Parliament.
I know you don't like the Supreme Court or the way this has been done, but the fact remains that this is "the deal" that the PM has been able to agree with the EU.
Until Parliament agrees, it is nothing else but 'her' deal.
You don't seem bright enough to understand that that last sentence doesn't logically follow from the sentence immediately before it.
You so nearly had it. I mean, that second-last sentence basically repeats what I said (after you had gone off making various points that don't, despite what you seem to think, negate what I'd said).
But then you go and triumphantly announce a conclusion that it's nothing else but 'her deal', a mere line after you actually referred to an agreement between the PM and the EU.
Look! It's bilateral! Look! Suddenly now it's unilateral again because I don't have enough brain cells to fit a bilateral agreement into! QED!
I do understand that on one side of that deal is only "her" rather than "the entire political rabble of the UK". That wasn't the fucking point. It's immensely sad that you seem to think it was.
FUCK YOU THERESA MAY
FUCK YOU DAVID CAMERON
FUCK YOU JACOB REES-MOGG
FUCK YOU EVERY FUCKING TORY MP
You are systematically fucking this once decent country*. You have blood on your hands. There will be more deaths, more blood. You are bleeding this country, destroying everything decent, for the sake of your own pockets. You will rot in hell, the very lowest circle.
*Not perfect, but decent.
No special mention for the lying, self-promoting Boris?
And the majority of the press, UKIP, the Leave campaigns, those who were suckered in to vote Leave and those who didn't vote Remain because they didn't think enough would vote Leave. Fuck the opposition MPs who didn't take the only opportunity likely in my lifetime to vote the proposed deal through that would provide a half-decent Exit.
It's interesting that it is being characterised as 'her' deal, when the reason why she is in this position is that the hardline Brexiters are refusing to back it - having had every opportunity to influence the process themselves, and having resigned from their ministerial posts on realising that what they want is unachievable. And now they can pretend that the EU would have given the UK everything they wanted if *they'd* been in charge of the negotiations (some of them were...) and blame Mrs May for everything that goes wrong (OK, the infamous 'red lines' are part of the reason why we're in this mess... but I'm sure her original plan was to make the Brexiters responsible for it).
Of course Liam Fox is still in his job, but that's probably because he's too stupid to understand there's poison in the chalice.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
As AFZ explained (better than me), it is her deal because it is her red lines that define it.
If she changes her red lines, there is a change to do a new deal.If not, there isn't.
It is her deal because if/when we plunge into total crisis, as is looking more and more likely, it is on her head. She is (supposedly) in charge. She is defining the deal.
History will view it as her deal. And also discuss just how our MPs have betrayed us. Except there is probably insufficient more history to do that.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
As AFZ explained (better than me), it is her deal because it is her red lines that define it.
If she changes her red lines, there is a change to do a new deal.If not, there isn't.
It is her deal because if/when we plunge into total crisis, as is looking more and more likely, it is on her head. She is (supposedly) in charge. She is defining the deal.
History will view it as her deal. And also discuss just how our MPs have betrayed us. Except there is probably insufficient more history to do that.
History may well define it as her deal, but it was initiated by the government and it is therefore the Cabinet's responsibility: some ministers resigned which indicates that the disagreeed with it. It may be called hers, but it is not hers alone.
She has kept the deal alive. She picked its parameters. She chose which politicians she listened to. Yes others rubber stamped it, but in essences it is a deal she negotiated.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
As AFZ explained (better than me), it is her deal because it is her red lines that define it.
Oh lordy. Every time I try to suggest that you all need to stop thinking that everything about this begins and ends in the UK, you provide another explanation of how I'm wrong because you can demonstrate how she was the key person in the UK.
I'm wondering just how long it's going to take some of you numbskulls to grasp that I'm not questioning how important Theresa May was to the position taken by the UK into negotiations, I'm pleading with you to spend five fucking seconds raising your eyes away from your own navels to notice there was an entire separate set of people on the other side of that negotiating table. You know, all those unimportant people with funny-sounding names.
It doesn't matter whether it's on this board or what I see in the media, the population of the UK seems utterly obsessed with framing everything about this in terms of the UK actors as nothing more than a domestic political matter. Whether it's talking about "her deal" because somehow only the head of one side of an agreement has any significance, or discussing "no deal" as if it's a choice rather than the consequence of utterly forgetting anyone else is involved in this and believing that all the bickering on one side of the negotiations is the main event, there is this utter determination to make this all about you. The smaller partner.
There seems to be zero understanding that while the UK could invoke Article 50 all on its own, decisions on what happens to the UK-EU relationship after the UK is not a member of the EU are not unilateral decisions.
Every time the response to me saying "it's a deal between 2 parties" is to say "she was one of the parties", all you are doing is demonstrating exactly why I have to keep reminding you that the EU is involved in the deal every much as bit as she is.
On the other hand I hear that some bookies are still offering 3 for 1 on the UK leaving the EU on March 29th. Do they know something I don't?
I've never been more inclined to put money on a bet in my life.
That said, it bears repeating that a week is a long time in politics, and we still have a bit more time then a week. But the only way I can see No Deal not happening is a dramatic realignment of the HoC vote, not any significant shift in the EU position.
In some ways it comes down to which outcome politicians deem to be more humiliating: having to accept the deal on the table (with perhaps some cosmetic alterations) or having cliff-edge Brexit on their record. I'm afraid the latter prospect may not be seen as a great enough humiliation by enough of them, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I think you're missing the point @orfeo. Everyone here* knows that there are two sides to the process. It is only a small clique of idiots in the UK (sadly over-represented amongst newspaper editors) who think the UK can define the deal.
The whole reason we are in this mess is that the Brexiteers either believed or cynically pretended that the UK could get EVERYTHING is wants from the EU whilst giving nothing - i.e. that there was no one of any significance on the other side of the table. British Empire 2.0 if you like. And Mrs May decided to try to appease them rather than stand up to them.
The reason why it's accurate to call it "May's Deal" is because it is the result of reality meeting this fantasy. With due acknowledgement to the point above about cabinet joint responsibility, it is her Government that decided on these Red Lines as if there was no one else on the other side of the table. This deal is the inevitable result of the fact that there is another side. May basically set out to give nothing. As a result the EU-UK deal has nothing in it that the fantasists promised.
I have had so many (exhausting) conversations with Brexit idiots who act as though the EU will do exactly what we want. They completely fail to see the irony of how incredibly undemocratic it would be for 27 sovereign nations to act against their own interests to appease the UK's idiocy.
AFZ
*By 'here' I mean in this conversation on the Ship. Sadly not the UK as a whole.
To me, it's not just a matter of the negotiating process. As far as that is concerned, Orfeo is exactly right. Where I believe he and Eutychus are wrong is that this is not the only outcome of the nightmare that is Brexit that is available. We have looked out of the door that is Article 50 and seen the deadly sheer drop, and been told that there is an emergency exit, in the form of the withdrawal of Article 50. She is proceeding as if that option were not available, and a purely advisory referrendum and process of netotiation with has produced nothing like what Brexiteers promised their followers is the only possible way forward. Thus, this is her Brexit outcome, if not her deal. This way forward catapults us directly into a nightmare, and it is that nightmare that many of those directly caught in it are ranting against. In hell.
It is the deal she negotiated and gets behind. It is the deal she is promoting as her solution to the shitstorm. She is the one making it personal. Yes, it is between two parties, but it is the one she wants as her legacy. Which it probably will be, unfortunately for her.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
It's a draft that needs both parties to agree. At the moment it doesn't exist as an international agreement between parties because one party (the British government) cannot legally sign up to it without consent of Parliament.
I know you don't like the Supreme Court or the way this has been done, but the fact remains that this is "the deal" that the PM has been able to agree with the EU.
Until Parliament agrees, it is nothing else but 'her' deal.
You don't seem bright enough to understand that that last sentence doesn't logically follow from the sentence immediately before it.
You so nearly had it. I mean, that second-last sentence basically repeats what I said (after you had gone off making various points that don't, despite what you seem to think, negate what I'd said).
But then you go and triumphantly announce a conclusion that it's nothing else but 'her deal', a mere line after you actually referred to an agreement between the PM and the EU.
Look! It's bilateral! Look! Suddenly now it's unilateral again because I don't have enough brain cells to fit a bilateral agreement into! QED!
I do understand that on one side of that deal is only "her" rather than "the entire political rabble of the UK". That wasn't the fucking point. It's immensely sad that you seem to think it was.
We have looked out of the door that is Article 50 and seen the deadly sheer drop, and been told that there is an emergency exit, in the form of the withdrawal of Article 50. She is proceeding as if that option were not available
In my view it is not realistically available as, AIUI, it would require assent of the House, which is even less likely than assent to some form of managed exit.
We have looked out of the door that is Article 50 and seen the deadly sheer drop, and been told that there is an emergency exit, in the form of the withdrawal of Article 50. She is proceeding as if that option were not available
In my view it is not realistically available as, AIUI, it would require assent of the House, which is even less likely than assent to some form of managed exit.
I think the ranking of possible outcomes (most to least likely) at the moment is this:
No-deal
The draft deal
Delay (caused by referendum or GE being called)
Withdrawal of A50
Delay (caused by MPs asking for it but with no real reason why)
I'd say that no-deal is ahead by some distance.
I hold out a bit of hope that we will get close to the deadline and that the draft-deal finally gets killed off for good. Then, somehow, a parliamentary majority is found which supports abandoning A50 over the inevitable chaos of no-deal.
But that looks highly unlikely and would require a lot of things to be done in a short space of time.
@orfeo - yes there is another side to this. We know this (as @alienfromzog said). But the EU made their position clear from the very start. That was clear. All the negotiation was May tring to find something that fitted between the various parties.
We wanted to leave, so we had to find a way of agreeing a relationship that worked. The EU position was where we started. That is the point.
I think the ranking of possible outcomes (most to least likely) at the moment is this:
No-deal
The draft deal
Delay (caused by referendum or GE being called)
Withdrawal of A50
Delay (caused by MPs asking for it but with no real reason why)
I'd say that no-deal is ahead by some distance.
Even though ahead, there's still little certainty. The problem is that the proposed "no deal" is to leave the EU under WTO rules. Which covers trade, but only makes sense if one assumes that the EU is just a trading club. But it isn't. The proposed "no deal" exit still needs to address the questions of the rights of UK citizens settled in the rest of the EU and EU citizens settled in the UK, questions of cultural and scientific collaborations, costs incurred by different EU bodies that still need to be recovered, issues with aircraft approvals, broadcasting, the Irish power network ... and, of course, the GFA. Any chance of those being sorted out by the end of March to allow an exit to trade under WTO?
The only "no deal" that doesn't need any sort of deal to be struck is the one where the UK government withdraws A50 and we stay in the EU.
Just to make things more complicated yet, there are apparently no actual 'WTO Default Terms' that the UK can fall back on in the event of a no-deal departure.
The Red Lines are basically the result of someone looking at the referendum result and believing that divorce does mean divorce, not continuing to live in the same house while claiming benefits at the single rate. Mind you, I've seen once on TV a divorced couple living in two halves of a single house, it was damn weird...
@orfeo, I’m so happy you’re back (missed you), and you’ve made plenty of reasonable observations. But, as @alienfromzog said, you’ve missed the point.
Of course the ‘deal’ involves two parties. But the point is that the EU has been reasonable, consistent and transparent from the beginning. The critical factor is the UK deciding what kind of Brexit it actually wants (notwithstanding the fact that one can’t have ones cake and eat it).
That’s why it’s May’s deal, with her stupid red lines. She’s the one that made it about immigration and leaving the common market, despite the fact that in the build up to the referendum all the main Brexiteers were saying that we could happily stay and be like Norway (how short our memories are).
And you've stretched the divorce analogy too far. In a divorce it’s possible that the two parties can piss off and never see each other again. The UK and the EU nations will continue to be close allies, trading partners and neighbours. That’s where the divorce analogy falls flat on its face. We’re talking about nations, not a divorcing couple.
Ironically, had Mrs May proposed a deal where the UK left the EU but stayed in the common market with freedom of movement, we probably wouldn’t be quite so much of a mess. It would have kept all the parties happyish. Brexiteers get their Brexit, we don’t fuck up the country quite so much; no border issue in Ireland; and not so much disruption for everyone; and, yes there is another party: it would have been easier and more acceptable to the EU, because they’re reasonable and not twats.
But she ruled that out because of her shitty red lines. THAT’S why it’s her deal.
Ultimately, it's her deal because it's what she fought to obtain. The EU side didn't define the deal, they're reactive not proactive. A small minority of political activists pushed for the UK to leave the EU, and managed to get enough leverage over David Cameron that he called a stupid referendum. When they got the referendum vote they wanted the EU asked "what sort of Brexit do you want?" and got no answer from those who'd pushed for it, and it was left to Mrs May (who'd campaigned to Remain) to come up with a plan - her Brexit ministers being even more incompetent than the rest of the Cabinet, or simply singing from a different hymn book than the PM. She took her plan to the EU, the EU responded to it by pointing out what couldn't work ending up with a summary of what would be closest to what she proposed that would be acceptable to the EU.
With one side being proactive and the other reactive, although it's true that the final deal is a product of both sides it will always be associated with the side making all the proposals.
Technically, the heads of government have agreed. The withdrawal agreement also need approval of the European Parliament (though the EP can't amend the text of the agreement it did, overwhelmingly, approve the "red lines" within which the EU negotiators operated), and all 27 national parliaments also need to approve the final deal at the end of the transition period.
I don't think the EP has yet voted to approve the WA, though it has been debated. If the EU negotiators make a further concession to the WA, especially one that breaks the red lines approved by the EP, then in theory the EP can scupper that - not that the EU are going to make any such concessions. If the EU negotiators are seen as throwing Ireland under the bus to get something through Westminster (eg: a significant weakening of the backstop) then I can imagine a sizeable number of MEPs voting against it in solidarity with Ireland (maybe not enough to prevent the vote passing). That will certainly make getting a final deal at the end of the transition period through all 27 parliaments effectively impossible, for that deal to work there needs to be a good dose of political respect for the UK position, so that the 27 heads of government can address their respective parliaments and say (and be believed) that this is the best possible deal which has been negotiated in good faith by all sides to protect the EUs red lines and honour the UK position. That's not going to fly when there's every evidence that the current UK government can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag without constantly changing position in response to the latest fad concerning the far right of the Tory party.
I think the short version is that the EU states and bodies have agreed to the draft deal providing the UK also agrees.
But I'm not entirely clear whether any further work needs doing in the EU if the HoC miraculously and suddenly accepts it. Does it all magically come into play in March?
I think you're missing the point @orfeo. Everyone here* knows that there are two sides to the process.
If everyone here knows that there are two sides to the process, it would be awesome if your language demonstrated this. I'm not psychic. I can only go on what I read... such as regular references to "her" deal.
The rest of your post, there was no point in quoting. Nor is there any point in quoting the next person who agreed that I missed the point and continued to demonstrate that a number of you are not actually paying attention to a damn thing I'm saying.
I mean, you all say "yes we know the EU is involved in the deal with Theresa May", but if any of you actually mentioned the EU without prompting, rather than constantly discussing UK politicians, I wouldn't be feeling the need to point out that you're completely failing to acknowledge the EU's role in "her" deal.
I wouldn't be communicating that calling it "her" deal doesn't demonstrate that you know the thing you're all telling me that you know.
Jeremy *unt has this morning been admitting on air that we 'may' - ie certainly will - need to delay the exit for what he called 'technical' reasons.
Oh Gawd!
The EU might just be willing to delay a no-deal exit to grant the UK time to get its act together for this, because that's in the EU's interests as well as the UK's.
If it were to do so, I would however be very surprised if any such delay extended beyond the EU elections, because then it would no longer be in the EU's interest to do so in view of the wider disruption it would create.
And if it were to grant a short extension, I'd fully expect that short extension to be almost wholly devoted to Parliament running round like headless chickens exactly as it has done for the last while, in place of actual preparations.
@orfeo, I may be completely wrong on this - it happens often - but you deliberately left out the meat of my point and the comments of people who agreed with me. That kinda makes my point that you are missing the point.
One last time:
The EU has been totally consistent and transparent from their side.
The UK (in the person of the Prime Minister) has instituted specific Red Lines which have led (because of the EU's consistent, logical and legal position) inexorably to this draft deal. Thus, not only is it accurate to call it May's Deal, it is particularly informative. It's almost a physics experiment: If I have these starting conditions then this will be the outcomes. Mrs May (and her Government) is responsible for the starting conditions. The reason why the EU side get so little mention specifically is that we know how they will react to the moves of the UK government; why? Because it is guided by the treaties and EU law and has been in the public domain since at least March 2017, if not before.
Interesting counter point: if you read the tweets, articles, and FB comments of Leavers (as I still do), they constantly refer to EU politicians. As-in, the EU are bullying us or Junker and Barnier want to punish the UK. The irony here is that those of us who refer to May's Deal here are completely cognisant of the role and legitimate interests of the EU27 that the Brexiteers keep blithely ignoring.
Not only is is accurate to refer to May's Deal it is particularly informative.
Comments
No special mention for the lying, self-promoting Boris?
Having gone to the HoC saying "this is what the EU will accept", and being roundly ignored.
I still find it fascinating that the HoC can't quite grasp who, according to international law, the deal is actually between.
You want to talk about a wall between the UK and Europe, there's a psychological one already, whereby anything that happened on the Continent is invisible. Everyone seems to think that Theresa May walked behind a curtain, disappeared from view, and then reappeared months later.
Start calling it "the deal with the EU" and you might realise how goddamn stupid some of the statements about it sound.
I could have included Johnson - I am jsut reading a bok which explains (among other things) how he is at the heart of Brexshit (even more so than Cameron). I just ran out of capitals.
And yes, he will be the clown in the lowest lowest circle of hell. Always joking, always ignored.
I see your point and I understand your ire but it a really important sense it is her deal.
The EU has been clear at every stage that they will stick to EU law as laid down in the various treaties. As such the deal that we have (with some minor tweaks) is what is possible under EU law, given the Red Lines.
This is the key. The so-called Red Lines were very-much her decision. And as such the deal we have now between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the European Union (of 27 nations) is the inevitable consequence of Mrs May's decisions and the appropriate and obvious decision of the EU to follow EU law.
Other deals are possible if you remove the Red Lines. It really is the deal that Mrs May crafted.
AFZ
May produced a deal done with the EU, which was what her government had a mandate to do. Has she done a good job? Not very. But she has come away with a deal, or more accurately a proposed withdrawal agreement including a transition period to iron out further details which I was actually relieved about.
My view as soon as this deal was on the table was that irrespective of how many dimensions of chess May is thought to be playing, it should be got behind in the national interest, and nothing in the interim period, which like the preceding 2 years the UK has largely frittered away, has changed my mind.
If it's not got behind, my forecast is that after a lot of upheaval the UK (or what parts of the Union are left...) will end up as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USA.
None of which gives any more logic to the line of thinking, apparently prevalent, that if we get Theresa to change her stance, "her deal" miraculously changes accordingly.
Calling it "her deal" manages to utterly ignore that it's the deal the EU has negotiated and is standing behind. Which is a fact much of the UK seems utterly incapable of grasping, though there's some sliver of hope that a few more people might figure this out now that the EU has said something about it.
But then, the headbangers in the Tory Party are already describing it as 'only a piece of paper.' What the hell has happened to this country?
Yes yes, other deals are possible so long as you try to make Brexit as non-exit as possible and pretend that the clusterfuck of a referendum didn't produce a meaningful result.
Which it probably didn't, frankly. I mean, millions of people probably didn't have a proper understanding of what they were voting for, and probably still wouldn't have understood even if there was a detailed proposal at hand.
But then, how are you supposed to develop a detailed proposal without the basic decision? Does anyone really think the EU would have agreed to spend so much time negotiating a hypothetical deal on the basis that, after all that, the UK public might have voted "no exit"? Let's get the lawyers to draw up the terms of divorce, but then we'll look at it and decide whether we want to divorce or stay together?
The Red Lines are basically the result of someone looking at the referendum result and believing that divorce does mean divorce, not continuing to live in the same house while claiming benefits at the single rate. Mind you, I've seen once on TV a divorced couple living in two halves of a single house, it was damn weird...
Yes, other deals are possible. But people usually decide to divorce and then realise all the detailed, awkward, messy consequences of that decision afterwards, rather than agreeing to only divorce if the terms look good.
Please stop talking about No Deal as if it's a menu option or conditional on other things happening first.
It's.The.Default.
No Deal involves tearing up the GFA, it's not conditional on the GFA being torn up.
I head a German commentator this morning say that the UK Parliament is clear about what it is against. A hard Brexit and the backstop. But what is it for? Specifically, being against the backstop requires some alternatives which would respect the unity of the EU 27 and protect the GFA. And after close to 2 years negotation, the backstop is the only mechanism the EU found which would keep the 27 united.
So what are we for?
Why ever could THEY see that as a problem? Just give us what we want, simples. 🙄
It's a draft that needs both parties to agree. At the moment it doesn't exist as an international agreement between parties because one party (the British government) cannot legally sign up to it without consent of Parliament.
I know you don't like the Supreme Court or the way this has been done, but the fact remains that this is "the deal" that the PM has been able to agree with the EU.
Until Parliament agrees, it is nothing else but 'her' deal.
Yes.
And this is what is so frustrating - all the talk of "taking back control" now comes down to basically begging the EU for an extension to a self-imposed deadline when there is no obvious reason why they should.
The whole country is being held ransom to a decision of the EU that they don't really want to make - and more-likely-than-not will choose to abstain from making.
It reminds me of students begging for more time at the end of an exam they know lasts 2 hours.
Of course that's true, and I didn't mean to suggest it wasn't. And it's certainly the way things are heading at the moment.
On the other hand I hear that some bookies are still offering 3 for 1 on the UK leaving the EU on March 29th. Do they know something I don't?
You heard Theresa May say the exact same thing weeks ago.
You don't seem bright enough to understand that that last sentence doesn't logically follow from the sentence immediately before it.
You so nearly had it. I mean, that second-last sentence basically repeats what I said (after you had gone off making various points that don't, despite what you seem to think, negate what I'd said).
But then you go and triumphantly announce a conclusion that it's nothing else but 'her deal', a mere line after you actually referred to an agreement between the PM and the EU.
Look! It's bilateral! Look! Suddenly now it's unilateral again because I don't have enough brain cells to fit a bilateral agreement into! QED!
I do understand that on one side of that deal is only "her" rather than "the entire political rabble of the UK". That wasn't the fucking point. It's immensely sad that you seem to think it was.
And the majority of the press, UKIP, the Leave campaigns, those who were suckered in to vote Leave and those who didn't vote Remain because they didn't think enough would vote Leave. Fuck the opposition MPs who didn't take the only opportunity likely in my lifetime to vote the proposed deal through that would provide a half-decent Exit.
Of course Liam Fox is still in his job, but that's probably because he's too stupid to understand there's poison in the chalice.
As AFZ explained (better than me), it is her deal because it is her red lines that define it.
If she changes her red lines, there is a change to do a new deal.If not, there isn't.
It is her deal because if/when we plunge into total crisis, as is looking more and more likely, it is on her head. She is (supposedly) in charge. She is defining the deal.
History will view it as her deal. And also discuss just how our MPs have betrayed us. Except there is probably insufficient more history to do that.
History may well define it as her deal, but it was initiated by the government and it is therefore the Cabinet's responsibility: some ministers resigned which indicates that the disagreeed with it. It may be called hers, but it is not hers alone.
Oh lordy. Every time I try to suggest that you all need to stop thinking that everything about this begins and ends in the UK, you provide another explanation of how I'm wrong because you can demonstrate how she was the key person in the UK.
I'm wondering just how long it's going to take some of you numbskulls to grasp that I'm not questioning how important Theresa May was to the position taken by the UK into negotiations, I'm pleading with you to spend five fucking seconds raising your eyes away from your own navels to notice there was an entire separate set of people on the other side of that negotiating table. You know, all those unimportant people with funny-sounding names.
It doesn't matter whether it's on this board or what I see in the media, the population of the UK seems utterly obsessed with framing everything about this in terms of the UK actors as nothing more than a domestic political matter. Whether it's talking about "her deal" because somehow only the head of one side of an agreement has any significance, or discussing "no deal" as if it's a choice rather than the consequence of utterly forgetting anyone else is involved in this and believing that all the bickering on one side of the negotiations is the main event, there is this utter determination to make this all about you. The smaller partner.
There seems to be zero understanding that while the UK could invoke Article 50 all on its own, decisions on what happens to the UK-EU relationship after the UK is not a member of the EU are not unilateral decisions.
Every time the response to me saying "it's a deal between 2 parties" is to say "she was one of the parties", all you are doing is demonstrating exactly why I have to keep reminding you that the EU is involved in the deal every much as bit as she is.
I've never been more inclined to put money on a bet in my life.
That said, it bears repeating that a week is a long time in politics, and we still have a bit more time then a week. But the only way I can see No Deal not happening is a dramatic realignment of the HoC vote, not any significant shift in the EU position.
In some ways it comes down to which outcome politicians deem to be more humiliating: having to accept the deal on the table (with perhaps some cosmetic alterations) or having cliff-edge Brexit on their record. I'm afraid the latter prospect may not be seen as a great enough humiliation by enough of them, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
The whole reason we are in this mess is that the Brexiteers either believed or cynically pretended that the UK could get EVERYTHING is wants from the EU whilst giving nothing - i.e. that there was no one of any significance on the other side of the table. British Empire 2.0 if you like. And Mrs May decided to try to appease them rather than stand up to them.
The reason why it's accurate to call it "May's Deal" is because it is the result of reality meeting this fantasy. With due acknowledgement to the point above about cabinet joint responsibility, it is her Government that decided on these Red Lines as if there was no one else on the other side of the table. This deal is the inevitable result of the fact that there is another side. May basically set out to give nothing. As a result the EU-UK deal has nothing in it that the fantasists promised.
I have had so many (exhausting) conversations with Brexit idiots who act as though the EU will do exactly what we want. They completely fail to see the irony of how incredibly undemocratic it would be for 27 sovereign nations to act against their own interests to appease the UK's idiocy.
AFZ
*By 'here' I mean in this conversation on the Ship. Sadly not the UK as a whole.
What the actual fuck are you on about?
In my view it is not realistically available as, AIUI, it would require assent of the House, which is even less likely than assent to some form of managed exit.
I think the ranking of possible outcomes (most to least likely) at the moment is this:
No-deal
The draft deal
Delay (caused by referendum or GE being called)
Withdrawal of A50
Delay (caused by MPs asking for it but with no real reason why)
I'd say that no-deal is ahead by some distance.
I hold out a bit of hope that we will get close to the deadline and that the draft-deal finally gets killed off for good. Then, somehow, a parliamentary majority is found which supports abandoning A50 over the inevitable chaos of no-deal.
But that looks highly unlikely and would require a lot of things to be done in a short space of time.
We wanted to leave, so we had to find a way of agreeing a relationship that worked. The EU position was where we started. That is the point.
The only "no deal" that doesn't need any sort of deal to be struck is the one where the UK government withdraws A50 and we stay in the EU.
There's a very interesting article on that here.
Fuck knows what happens if we get to the end of March and we are not even organised enough for a no-deal exit.
@orfeo, I’m so happy you’re back (missed you), and you’ve made plenty of reasonable observations. But, as @alienfromzog said, you’ve missed the point.
Of course the ‘deal’ involves two parties. But the point is that the EU has been reasonable, consistent and transparent from the beginning. The critical factor is the UK deciding what kind of Brexit it actually wants (notwithstanding the fact that one can’t have ones cake and eat it).
That’s why it’s May’s deal, with her stupid red lines. She’s the one that made it about immigration and leaving the common market, despite the fact that in the build up to the referendum all the main Brexiteers were saying that we could happily stay and be like Norway (how short our memories are).
And you've stretched the divorce analogy too far. In a divorce it’s possible that the two parties can piss off and never see each other again. The UK and the EU nations will continue to be close allies, trading partners and neighbours. That’s where the divorce analogy falls flat on its face. We’re talking about nations, not a divorcing couple.
Ironically, had Mrs May proposed a deal where the UK left the EU but stayed in the common market with freedom of movement, we probably wouldn’t be quite so much of a mess. It would have kept all the parties happyish. Brexiteers get their Brexit, we don’t fuck up the country quite so much; no border issue in Ireland; and not so much disruption for everyone; and, yes there is another party: it would have been easier and more acceptable to the EU, because they’re reasonable and not twats.
But she ruled that out because of her shitty red lines. THAT’S why it’s her deal.
With one side being proactive and the other reactive, although it's true that the final deal is a product of both sides it will always be associated with the side making all the proposals.
I don't think the EP has yet voted to approve the WA, though it has been debated. If the EU negotiators make a further concession to the WA, especially one that breaks the red lines approved by the EP, then in theory the EP can scupper that - not that the EU are going to make any such concessions. If the EU negotiators are seen as throwing Ireland under the bus to get something through Westminster (eg: a significant weakening of the backstop) then I can imagine a sizeable number of MEPs voting against it in solidarity with Ireland (maybe not enough to prevent the vote passing). That will certainly make getting a final deal at the end of the transition period through all 27 parliaments effectively impossible, for that deal to work there needs to be a good dose of political respect for the UK position, so that the 27 heads of government can address their respective parliaments and say (and be believed) that this is the best possible deal which has been negotiated in good faith by all sides to protect the EUs red lines and honour the UK position. That's not going to fly when there's every evidence that the current UK government can't negotiate their way out of a paper bag without constantly changing position in response to the latest fad concerning the far right of the Tory party.
But I'm not entirely clear whether any further work needs doing in the EU if the HoC miraculously and suddenly accepts it. Does it all magically come into play in March?
Oh Gawd!
If everyone here knows that there are two sides to the process, it would be awesome if your language demonstrated this. I'm not psychic. I can only go on what I read... such as regular references to "her" deal.
The rest of your post, there was no point in quoting. Nor is there any point in quoting the next person who agreed that I missed the point and continued to demonstrate that a number of you are not actually paying attention to a damn thing I'm saying.
I wouldn't be communicating that calling it "her" deal doesn't demonstrate that you know the thing you're all telling me that you know.
The EU might just be willing to delay a no-deal exit to grant the UK time to get its act together for this, because that's in the EU's interests as well as the UK's.
If it were to do so, I would however be very surprised if any such delay extended beyond the EU elections, because then it would no longer be in the EU's interest to do so in view of the wider disruption it would create.
And if it were to grant a short extension, I'd fully expect that short extension to be almost wholly devoted to Parliament running round like headless chickens exactly as it has done for the last while, in place of actual preparations.
One last time:
The EU has been totally consistent and transparent from their side.
The UK (in the person of the Prime Minister) has instituted specific Red Lines which have led (because of the EU's consistent, logical and legal position) inexorably to this draft deal. Thus, not only is it accurate to call it May's Deal, it is particularly informative. It's almost a physics experiment: If I have these starting conditions then this will be the outcomes. Mrs May (and her Government) is responsible for the starting conditions. The reason why the EU side get so little mention specifically is that we know how they will react to the moves of the UK government; why? Because it is guided by the treaties and EU law and has been in the public domain since at least March 2017, if not before.
Interesting counter point: if you read the tweets, articles, and FB comments of Leavers (as I still do), they constantly refer to EU politicians. As-in, the EU are bullying us or Junker and Barnier want to punish the UK. The irony here is that those of us who refer to May's Deal here are completely cognisant of the role and legitimate interests of the EU27 that the Brexiteers keep blithely ignoring.
Not only is is accurate to refer to May's Deal it is particularly informative.
AFZ