Brexit Begins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

It's a consequence of triggering Article 50 without any vision or agreement about what success looks like.

---

On that I completely agree. Theresa May has been terrible for that, absolutely terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

In this case they are justified. We know perfectly well what the various border schemes will result in. The logistics companies also know very well what those results will mean for their own business.

The problem is that both the companies and your government (should!) know about those consequences - and the companies have asked what will be done to mitigate the more problematic results (example: Drivers licenses becoming invalid).

As of yet, they have no clear answer.

To put it into a perspective you can understand: This is like an announcement that all pubs, restaurants and other locales will face new regulations to be allowed to serve alcohol. If they don't uphold those regulations, no alcohol is allowed to be sold. What those new regulations actually are? Who the fuck knows.

---

Yes except the government has already said and agreed in principle with the EU that there will be a standstill transition until 31 Dec 2019. The new regulations will come into force in nearly two years time. Laws can and frequently do change with shorter notice than 2 years.

We can't say what the new regulations are until an agreement is made with the EU as to what they will be.

One regulation that has just changed affecting small businesses of every size and shape is the introduction last month of the GDPR. I would estimate more than 90% of small businesses would have spent less than 1.5 years planning for GDPR.

The Health Act 2006 transformed pubs in this country by outlawing smoking in them. The ban came into effect with less than 12 months after the Act was signed onto the statue book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes except the government has already said and agreed in principle with the EU that there will be a standstill transition until 31 Dec 2019.

---

Incorrect. Govt. did indeed come to an agreement in principle with the EU, but has since then tried to slither out of their commitment, now trying to sell the EU the notion of a backstop to the backstop, which means no backstop at all and effectively nullifies the agreement about transition. The UK is once again showing itself to be an untrustworthy negotiation partner.

Quote:

---

The new regulations will come into force in nearly two years time. Laws can and frequently do change with shorter notice than 2 years.

We can't say what the new regulations are until an agreement is made with the EU as to what they will be.

One regulation that has just changed affecting small businesses of every size and shape is the introduction last month of the GDPR. I would estimate more than 90% of small businesses would have spent less than 1.5 years planning for GDPR.

The Health Act 2006 transformed pubs in this country by outlawing smoking in them. The ban came into effect with less than 12 months after the Act was signed onto the statue book.

---

These comparisons are ridiculous. The examples you cite require much less time and money to adapt to--and set up contingency plans for--than changes to customs regimes, rules of origin, access to labour etc. This is true even under ideal conditions, but businesses' difficulties here reflect--and are exacerbated by--govt's inability to deal with them in a clear and timely manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The Health Act 2006 transformed pubs in this country by outlawing smoking in them. The ban came into effect with less than 12 months after the Act was signed onto the statue book.

---

Yes, bravo for missing the point once again. As you're wont to do. In your example, it was very clear that this was a) a ban and b) how to comply with it. Also, it's a completely different approach.

Your Health Act basically said: "If you don't do A then we'll shut you down or fine you."

In this case, however, it's rather: "Well, your business may have to close down completely because we don't have an agreement yet. And we don't know how you can avoid that."

Basically, with your Health Act it was rather clear how to comply. And also rather easy to do. With the driving license issue? It's still completely in the air. Not a single person has a single fucking clue.

The problem here is that Randy doesn't understand why he is wrong. He thinks that the old rules apply while we can't make him understand that what he did with his idiotic vote was set fire to the rule book.

Two questions:

1) How could anyone in their right mind promote BoJo to the cabinet?
2) What leverage does he have over the PM to enable him to remain there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Incorrect. Govt. did indeed come to an agreement in principle with the EU, but has since then tried to slither out of their commitment, now trying to sell the EU the notion of a backstop to the backstop, which means no backstop at all and effectively nullifies the agreement about transition. The UK is once again showing itself to be an untrustworthy negotiation partner.

---

The backstop agreed was that there would be no barrier across Ireland or across the UK. Barnier's proposal nullified that first by proposing a "have cake and eat it" proposal where one part of the UK is treated as still being part of the market while the rest of the UK is treated as a third party. A magical proposal whereby unicorns can prance across the Irish border into the UK while the UK is treated as a third party. That was never agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barnier

“On regulatory alignment we have been pragmatic and developed the least disruptive system for citizens and businesses on both sides. Let’s go to pragmatism. Checks carried out on ferries are less disruptive than along a 500km land border.”

---

Except that NI is post-Brexit part of the UK and not part of the EU. There seems to be some denial of reality at the moment that imagines that NI is going to remain in the EU - that is not happening. If there's disruption because you've not made a deal then so be it, there are no checks on ferries under any proposal ever agreed. There is no backstop under Article 50 - if there is no deal then the ferries won't have checks it is the land border that does so if you want to keep the land border check-free we need a realistic proposal not a have cake and eat it one.

The backstop is whatever we think it is.

Without a deal there is no backstop. The ultimate backstop is we all crash out together. Either way though its not the UK reneging on what was agreed last December. See this from an arch-Remainer and one of the fiercest critics of Brexit in the media:

Twitter Link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Without a deal there is no backstop. The ultimate backstop is we all crash out together. Either way though its not the UK reneging on what was agreed last December. See this from an arch-Remainer and one of the fiercest critics of Brexit in the media:

Twitter Link

---

Eh, we (EU) will not crash either way. Otherwise, your remoaners are about as bad when it comes to understanding the EU as your average Breximaniacs. So, I don't give a hoot for what one of those thinks about where we are willing to draw the line.

As far as Ireland is concerned which is the topic argued about absolutely you will. Or are you saying there will be no customs even if there is no agreement in which case what do we need the backstop for?

You remember two years ago? When you demanded a reason from me to vote to stay in? Seems to me that at the ti'me you'd have your time spent a lot better considering what an OUT vote meant for the arrangement you had for a part of your precious union that could not exist outside alignment with the EU. An arrangement which was voted for by the people of that part of your union with 7!%. This democratic vote was shoved in the rubbish bin by your consultative vote. Not because that vote was about abandoning the GFA, but because idiots like you never thought about the collateral damage they were causing.

Nobody in the EU27 voted for Brexit, we didn't create any of the problems you are experiencing with Brexit. You broke it, you fix it.

This condescending attitude demonstrates exactly what's wrong with the EU and precisely why we need to Leave. For us the relationship was already broken which is why Cameron tried to fix it with his failed renegotiation. You and your ilk refused to accept anything was broken then and have acted like a woman scorned since we voted to Leave as if we broke it. No it was already broken and if you won't be an honest broker in fixing it that leaves us one option.

The problem is that Theresa Maybe is an incompetent fraud. She acted with all this false bravado saying the right things like "No deal is better than a bad deal" while making the same mistake as Cameron in refusing to even countenance walking away thus guaranteeing we'd never take no deal and thus would only be offered a bad deal.

If you won't be honest brokers, if you won't honour the deal struck last December then its time to walk away and if May won't then she should go and someone else needs to. May's wasted nearly 2 years since we voted to leave but we have about 9 months left to prepare for WTO terms and a no deal exit and £39bn that we won't need to give to you afterall to smooth any problems. Maybe then you can start talking.

First step should be to start prepping for construction of border posts in Northern Ireland unless the taoiseach decides he wants to negotiate afterall.

We will honour the deal. However, it's your side which is kind of lacking on honouring anything here.

Also: You want something. So you have to deliver. Not the other way around.

Oh, and nice attitude towards the border. I'd invest into shatterproof / bulletproof glass then, Rand.

How is Barnier talking about checks on ferries honouring the deal?

Checkpoints on the border is the last resort, the first preference is a deal so that its redundant and unnecessary but if you won't reach a deal with us then we have no choice. We entered the EEC as one nation (including NI) and you need to understand we're leaving it as one nation. Until you understand that ferries won't have any checks there is not much more to talk about is there?

If your alternative to negotiating is to threaten terrorism then we have no need to negotiate with terrorists, just honest brokers. Come to the table when you want to talk.

Have fun with your trainwreck brigade then.

Every country gets the government it deserves.

Indeed and this one is awful. The sooner May is gone the better.

Incidentally any East/West checks like Barnier is explicitly calling for on Ferries is just as much of a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as North/South ones. But that doesn't seem to bother some hypocrites.

Since Davis, May etc aren't calling for North South checks I expect the condemnation for Barnier being the only one wanting to violate the Good Friday Agreement will be .... total and utter silence from you guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

This condescending attitude demonstrates exactly what's wrong with the EU and precisely why we need to Leave. For us the relationship was already broken which is why Cameron tried to fix it with his failed renegotiation. You and your ilk refused to accept anything was broken then and have acted like a woman scorned since we voted to Leave as if we broke it. No it was already broken and if you won't be an honest broker in fixing it that leaves us one option.

The problem is that Theresa Maybe is an incompetent fraud. She acted with all this false bravado saying the right things like "No deal is better than a bad deal" while making the same mistake as Cameron in refusing to even countenance walking away thus guaranteeing we'd never take no deal and thus would only be offered a bad deal.

If you won't be honest brokers, if you won't honour the deal struck last December then its time to walk away and if May won't then she should go and someone else needs to. May's wasted nearly 2 years since we voted to leave but we have about 9 months left to prepare for WTO terms and a no deal exit and £39bn that we won't need to give to you afterall to smooth any problems. Maybe then you can start talking.

First step should be to start prepping for construction of border posts in Northern Ireland unless the taoiseach decides he wants to negotiate afterall.

---

In which fantasy world are 'we' to be expected to be honest brokers? We are the other side in the negotiations with our interests to be defended by our negotiators. Your minister of finance even called us 'the enemy'.

And by all means : walk away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Incidentally any East/West checks like Barnier is explicitly calling for on Ferries is just as much of a violation of the Good Friday Agreement as North/South ones. But that doesn't seem to bother some hypocrites.

Since Davis, May etc aren't calling for North South checks I expect the condemnation for Barnier being the only one wanting to violate the Good Friday Agreement will be .... total and utter silence from you guys.

---

Why should the same rules apply to us as to you? Still believe that you are an equal partner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Why should the same rules apply to us as to you?

---

Because this is supposedly about honouring the GFA. If you don't give a shit about that and are prepared to spit on it and just trying to get what you want then don't claim the moral high ground.

Quote:

---

Still believe that you are an equal partner?

---

Not with May as disaster in chief no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not with May as disaster in chief no.

---

I could have told you right from the start that basing your strategy on a divisive issue will create a divisive government. The problem is that you didn't start with "We want [this] to replace the current scheme", you started with: "Let's tear down the old system without a full plan on what comes next." It was destructive instead of constructive.

Pretty much never in the history of mankind has that methodology worked out well for anyone.

Actually the Vote Leave prospectus that I voted for led by Gove and Johnson was constructive. I was pro-Remain until I read that and it was Gove that switched me to support that.

The problem is that neither Gove nor Johnson won the leadership election and their prospectus was junked the second May took over. May backed the Remain campaign remember and then switched to the meaningless tautology "Brexit means Brexit" which meant nothing Vote Leave campaigned on apparently and just a bunch of red lines and her anti-immigration nonsense that I opposed her on here before she took over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Actually the Vote Leave prospectus that I voted for led by Gove and Johnson was constructive. I was pro-Remain until I read that and it was Gove that switched me to support that.

The problem is that neither Gove nor Johnson won the leadership election and their prospectus was junked the second May took over. May backed the Remain campaign remember and then switched to the meaningless tautology "Brexit means Brexit" which meant nothing Vote Leave campaigned on apparently and just a bunch of red lines and her anti-immigration nonsense that I opposed her on here before she took over.

---

Was Gove's and Johnson's prospectus the leading voice? No? Then I stand by my "divisive" and "destructive" definition. You were quite naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Was Gove's and Johnson's prospectus the leading voice?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes.

---

Obviously not. Because they didn't win. That's definite evidence that they did not have the leading voice. If theirs had been the leading voice they could not have lost.

Please don't try to fabricate a stab-in-the-back legend now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes.

---

That's totally irrelevant; they promised you something that only 'we' could give you. And at the time of the vote you were told by 'us': 'no way we're going to give that to you'. Yet, you chose to believe something that was not only a pack of lies but blatantly so. What's even worse is that today, 2 years later, you still act as if you were entitled to believe those lies and that it is only Theresa May who's to blame. Let me tell you this buddy; the only reason why we are still talking and why you are merely at the edge of the cliff rather than at the feet of the cliff, is Theresa's skill in not saying anything that would make us get up from the table and walk away from your Brexit nonsense.

There is no Brexiteer who would have achieved more than Theresa, there is a whole list of them who would have gotten you significantly less than her.

Also it's amazing how those same people who duped you into voting 'out' in 2016 as we speak are still promising unicorns and castles in the sky that are actually nothing more and nothing less than a total abandonment of control of your borders.

In those terms Brexit is even worse than the darkest prediction I made about it in the run up to your silly referendum. I predicted a vasal-type existence for the UK, I never imagined you'd surrender to the rest of the world while you were at it.

Gove and Johnson were the leading voices (behind Farage, of course); but in a wonderfully ironic twist of fate demonstrating just how sovereign we actually are (and how much control we actually had), a Remainer with the charisma of a tea-bag, the vision of a rabid senile mole and the physical presence of a ghoul ended up at the helm.

You couldn't make it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

Gove and Johnson were the leading voices (behind Farage, of course); but in a wonderfully ironic twist of fate demonstrating just how sovereign we actually are (and how much control we actually had), a Remainer with the charisma of a tea-bag, the vision of a rabid senile mole and the physical presence of a ghoul ended up at the helm.

You couldn't make it up.

---

And still; the reason why the ship isn't entirely going up in flames already is that Theresa is at the helm. Any of the Brexiteers would have made a much bigger mess of this. For the simple reason they actually believe their own lies. Even today Rees-Mogg dared repeat the lie that there need not be any Customs controls on the UK border. Effectively telling that the UK wasn't taking back control over its trade from the EU, but simply throwing control as it is to the wind. Your industries would have to compete with cheap imports from wherever people fancied importing from. That was what leavers voted for? Being put out of business and jobs by Chinese behemots ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Obviously not. Because they didn't win. That's definite evidence that they did not have the leading voice. If theirs had been the leading voice they could not have lost.

Please don't try to fabricate a stab-in-the-back legend now.

---

It was the leading voice in the referenudm.

There's no stab-in-the-back legend now, the Tory leadership election did not happen in the referendum it happened after it. Gove did not stab Johnson in the back, he stabbed him in the front. May was a Remainer not a Leaver and it was a Tory election not a leave/remain one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gogobongopop

Gove and Johnson were the leading voices (behind Farage, of course); but in a wonderfully ironic twist of fate demonstrating just how sovereign we actually are (and how much control we actually had), a Remainer with the charisma of a tea-bag, the vision of a rabid senile mole and the physical presence of a ghoul ended up at the helm.

You couldn't make it up.

---

Sadly I can't disagree with a word you wrote (except that you put in brackets but we've been over that many times).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

And still; the reason why the ship isn't entirely going up in flames already is that Theresa is at the helm. Any of the Brexiteers would have made a much bigger mess of this. For the simple reason they actually believe their own lies. Even today Rees-Mogg dared repeat the lie that there need not be any Customs controls on the UK border. Effectively telling that the UK wasn't taking back control over its trade from the EU, but simply throwing control as it is to the wind. Your industries would have to compete with cheap imports from wherever people fancied importing from. That was what leavers voted for? Being put out of business and jobs by Chinese behemots ?

---

You mean like Singapore? Or New Zealand? Absolutely I 100% would back that any believer in free trade rather than protectionism should.

Walk away from these bad-faith negotiations, abolish all tariffs, slash business rates and become the Singapore of Europe. Britain has always thrived best when we open up to the world and turn our backs on your protectionist nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It was the leading voice in the referenudm.

---

Doesn't count for shit. Even if it was the "leading" voice it then was a very weak "leading" voice as it's message was promptly ignored and the votum usurped.

That's the hallmark of propaganda, not leadership. If you can ignore this "leadership" so very effectively then it wasn't really "leadership". It was just a convenient message trotted out to hypnotize the masses.

Happens all the time with destructive proposals - the "So, we won. What now?" void it creates effectively lets anyone with the will to power fill said void with their own strategy.

If your proposal (i.e. your vote) had been constructive from the start, this could not have happened. Instead you voted for destruction and let someone else fill the gap. It doesn't matter what the "leading voice" was. It didn't succeed and also wasn't included on the ballot.

Which lead to this ongoing trainwreck you have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You mean like Singapore? Or New Zealand? Absolutely I 100% would back that any believer in free trade rather than protectionism should.

Walk away from these bad-faith negotiations, abolish all tariffs, slash business rates and become the Singapore of Europe. Britain has always thrived best when we open up to the world and turn our backs on your protectionist nonsense.

---

Mogg clarified that he meant the UK could forgo checks on goods from the EU only, while maintaining checks on goods from other countries, without a trade agreement in place. This is a lie and it's a fucking stupid one at that. It is ridiculous that British media is giving this liar so much free positive exposure. It's like interviewing Baghdad Bob.

Probably because people like you have a hard on for picking the most extreme people like him and viewing British politics at that. No different to Lewk cherrypicking a few oddball women who've lied about rape and then acting like all rape victims are like that.

Mogg is a meaningless backbencher who's never held office yet you've mentioned him many more times than actual leading politicians and ministers like Gove. Why is that?

To be fair, the media can't shut up about him either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Probably because people like you have a hard on for picking the most extreme people like him and viewing British politics at that. No different to Lewk cherrypicking a few oddball women who've lied about rape and then acting like all rape victims are like that.

Mogg is a meaningless backbencher who's never held office yet you've mentioned him many more times than actual leading politicians and ministers like Gove. Why is that?

---

Because he gets a great deal of coverage by mainstream British media sources as well as influential non-traditional alternative media. The lies he tells are not very different from those peddled by the likes of Hannan, Fox, Redwood and various outspoken MPs & conservative pro-Brexit commentators with huge followings. The comparison with Gove is interesting because the only advantage Gove has over Mogg is that the former has been less talkative of late and thus lied less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Because he gets a great deal of coverage by mainstream British media sources as well as influential non-traditional alternative media. The lies he tells are not very different from those peddled by the likes of Hannan, Fox, Redwood and various outspoken MPs & conservative pro-Brexit commentators with huge followings. The comparison with Gove is interesting because the only advantage Gove has over Mogg is that the former has been less talkative of late and thus lied less.

---

Hannan and Gove are libertarian Tories like myself that I have a lot of time for and agree with.

Mogg is a Papist social conservative fruitcake that views the 17th century as too modern.

Take on Hannan and I'd have more respect for you because I frankly agree wholeheartedly with him on most things.

Hannan is full of shit. For the past few months he's been spreading disinformation about border and tariff issues, and various disingenuous arguments, especially on Twitter, and then deleting them or moving on without comment when he's disproved by people who are more knowledgeable. His bizarre habit of posting stolen photos and pretending he took them himself on his travels is just the tip of the crazy iceberg.

So full of shit you have nothing to quote and actually disagree with unlike people you're a fanboy of like Mogg? Sure ...

I'm sorry but I am not going to dig through the internet for Hannan's deleted tweets weeks after I saw them just because you don't have a clue about the halfwits you idolize. But sure, next time he does it, I'll try to remember to post about it here.