Read the article. It's clearly a non-issue. He's pandering to the racists, knowing the rest of the Tories will explain away his actions (case in point, you).Originally Posted by RandBlade
Read the article. It's clearly a non-issue. He's pandering to the racists, knowing the rest of the Tories will explain away his actions (case in point, you).
Hope is the denial of reality
How common is the name Mordaunt?
Congratulations America
Not common at all. I'm too lazy to work out the precise degree of relatedness from this http://www.mordaunt.me.uk/london.html
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Not Trump-like at all.
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
Absolutely not Trump like at all. When have you ever seen Trump simply admit he doesn't know something like Boris did there? He didn't call Neil a liar or anything and just outright said no which was the right thing to do there, because had he tried to bluff rather than say no Neil would have nailed him on it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Andrew Neil is by far and away the best interviewer there is. Utterly impartial and ruthless and doesn't put up with any bullshit or obfuscation.
I knew what 5c said. You know, because I posted it here a few weeks ago in a conversation we were having about the same subject. Why didn't Boris know? It's not like this is hard information to find, and it's a big part of his pitch.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Being under the spotlight by Andrew Neil is challenging. Better to say no than bluff. Normal practice for most politicians is to bluff but Neil would nail them on it so he said no. Refreshing.
5c is fine. I think this GATT proposal is a good compromise and it is perfectly lawful. Of course it requires the EU's consent but it deals with most of the complaints put forward so far in this process.
We could under 5c agree we want a zero tariff, zero quote FTA within a decade (WTO rules permit a decade). Rather than a 2 year transition then we essentially agree a 10 year transition. Which should be plenty long enough to negotiate an FTA.
Farage would be spitting feathers at us signing up to follow EU rules for upto another decade but it seems sensible to me.
It requires the EU's consent in a situation where you just walked away from what the EU considers your obligations.
So, that's going to be the easiest agreement in the history of the world all over again?
FYI ; the price for the consent of the EU would be (roughly); 50 billion euro's, a full guarantee of the rights of EU citizens and of course the famous backstop in whatever form suits us.
Congratulations America
If it is negotiated we won't have walked away from our obligations.
I think Boris's plan is to propose basically that: A 10 year GATT 24 transition where we are essentially supplicants following your laws while we negotiate a new deal, payment in full of the €50 billion Euros, a full guarantee of the rights of EU citizens and 10 years of guaranteed open border while we sort out the Irish border as an alternative to May's backstop. Alternatively if there is no deal there is a crash out, no payment, guarantees still since we've said we'll do that either way and a serious problem on the border to resolve.
Hand on heart do you think that is an unreasonable proposal?
You can't have a invoke 24 while you negotiate a trade deal. You have to have already negotiated a deal, or you have to have an interim agreement. An interim agreement is problematic for two reasons a) we already tried and failed to negotiate an interim agreement, and we couldn't figure out a solution to the Irish border. Simply changing the name from withdrawal agreement to interim agreement isn't going to change anyone's position on the Irish border. b) Any other WTO member can essentially block the agreement if they feel it is unlikely to lead to an agreement within the proposed time-frame. People generally avoid them because of this reason.
The other problem with this is that 10 years is a long ass time, and it's unclear to me whether the ERG Tories/Tories afraid of the losing their seats to the Brexit party would tolerate what is in effect a 10 year backstop, especially as they can practically taste a hard Brexit at this point, which is what they really want.
It is also unclear to me whether or not the EU would be happy with a 10 year backstop, rather than the indefinite one they were after. Remember that any EU member could prevent interim agreement through the WTO.
In short, Johnson's plan faces more or less the same problems May's did.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
That's a time limit on the Irish open border. It has been rejected several times already. For the fact that it abrogates the GFA.
And yes, you may say that this is illogical. But we would not have been where we are if you hadn't chosen to exit the EU where being in the EU was an Integral part of what made the GFA possible.
So, yes it is an unreasonable suggestion. For the simple reason that you demand that we solve the problems you chose to create.
And you seem to be unaware of the fact that your prospective PM may think he can make a deal to activate article 24, but it is a matter of EU law that those negotiations are illegal as long as the UK is a member state and preliminary talks specifically forbidden until the WA has been ratified.
To even start with the talks you would have to have left and then the council would have to mandate the start of negotiations. Unanimously. Guess what the Irish will want.
Or in the case of the USA; what the Irish Americans want. People who have a relationship with the White House so special that it should make you stop and think.
Last edited by Hazir; 07-13-2019 at 10:15 PM.
Congratulations America
We have the outline of an interim agreement already. The backstop as you say is the issue. Realistically getting alternative arrangements up and running in 2 years is going to be problematic, but within a decade is quite reasonable. So "5C" is dealt with, the shape will effectively be what's already been agreed for the transition and the timescale will be a decade.
To get this over and done with I think almost all Tories are prepared to a timelimited backstop, even Jacob Rees Mogg voted for an unlimited backstop on the third meaningful vote but there were still some who wouldn't. I wouldn't back an unlimited backstop but I'd back a 'long ass time' one.The other problem with this is that 10 years is a long ass time, and it's unclear to me whether the ERG Tories/Tories afraid of the losing their seats to the Brexit party would tolerate what is in effect a 10 year backstop, especially as they can practically taste a hard Brexit at this point, which is what they really want.
Yes this needs the EU's agreement but at least he is proposing something different unlike May, that is the purpose of negotiations to come with ideas and reach a compromise.It is also unclear to me whether or not the EU would be happy with a 10 year backstop, rather than the indefinite one they were after. Remember that any EU member could prevent interim agreement through the WTO.
In short, Johnson's plan faces more or less the same problems May's did.
We've got a time limit on the Irish open border as it stands. It runs out in 109 days as it stands.
Exiting the EU is perfectly legal and was ratified by the Irish after the GFA was created.And yes, you may say that this is illogical. But we would not have been where we are if you hadn't chosen to exit the EU where being in the EU was an Integral part of what made the GFA possible.
The Irish want a solution. A compromise over a decade rather than 2 years is a solution that if the Irish accept there is no reason why the WA can't be amended to reflect that then ratified by all sides.And you seem to be unaware of the fact that your prospective PM may think he can make a deal to activate article 24, but it is a matter of EU law that those negotiations are illegal as long as the UK is a member state and preliminary talks specifically forbidden until the WA has been ratified.
To even start with the talks you would have to have left and then the council would have to mandate the start of negotiations. Unanimously. Guess what the Irish will want.
Or in the case of the USA; what the Irish Americans want. People who have a relationship with the White House so special that it should make you stop and think.
It's not dealt with, because neither side has actually agreed to a deal.
I reiterate, invoking article 24 requires an agreement to already exist. We haven't agreed anything, so no Article 24. If we had agreed something, we wouldn't need it, or it would be what we would be using to cover the transition period anyway. There's nothing to Johnson's proposal but slight of hand to make people think he's got a new solution when he hasn't.
[quote[To get this over and done with I think almost all Tories are prepared to a timelimited backstop, even Jacob Rees Mogg voted for an unlimited backstop on the third meaningful vote but there were still some who wouldn't.[/quote]
Rees Mogg backed that, I recall correctly, because he thought it was that or no Brexit at the time. Now that Johnson has said he is Prepared to Walk Away and is leaving on the 31st come what may, he now knows all he needs to do is block whatever comes through parliament for a few more months and he'll get exactly what he wants.
That's the other side of that particular sword.
That would be foolish of you, as a leaver. That is an awfully long time to hope there's no second referendum. Public opinion is likely to change a lot in both directions over that time, and all a smart pro-remain government would have to do is pick its time, especially if the upcoming deal starts to look a like like membership-with-no-voting privileges.I wouldn't back an unlimited backstop but I'd back a 'long ass time' one.
A time limited backstop is actually not a new proposal. It was being discussed around the beginning of the year. Johnson's is longer, but it seems unlikely that will make a difference and DUP/Euroskeptics may decide it's too long.Yes this needs the EU's agreement but at least he is proposing something different unlike May, that is the purpose of negotiations to come with ideas and reach a compromise.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
RandBlade, what the fuck is wrong with you? The people you supposedly have an agreement with say that they have not even discussed a potential agreement with you. And still you think they are going to save your sorry asses by saying there is an agreement?
On this side of the Channel article 24 is a non-issue. For us it's just Brits negotiating with each other again.
Congratulations America
We have 'agreed' a 599 page document actually.
I'm not sure. With Hammond and others threatening to VONC if there is No Deal then they can't be certain Boris will get his way even if he wants to. An agreement therefore is reasonable for everyone.Rees Mogg backed that, I recall correctly, because he thought it was that or no Brexit at the time. Now that Johnson has said he is Prepared to Walk Away and is leaving on the 31st come what may, he now knows all he needs to do is block whatever comes through parliament for a few more months and he'll get exactly what he wants.
If the public changes its mind so be it.That would be foolish of you, as a leaver. That is an awfully long time to hope there's no second referendum. Public opinion is likely to change a lot in both directions over that time, and all a smart pro-remain government would have to do is pick its time, especially if the upcoming deal starts to look a like like membership-with-no-voting privileges.
The problem we were being told is that a deal could take about 7 years to negotiate and the transition was 2 years. It didn't add up. A decade is a very different kettle of fish but not forever. It is a good compromise.A time limited backstop is actually not a new proposal. It was being discussed around the beginning of the year. Johnson's is longer, but it seems unlikely that will make a difference and DUP/Euroskeptics may decide it's too long.
They've not discussed a potential agreement because its not been proposed yet!
Your side have already [quite appropriately] said they would speak to our new PM when he is elected and would listen to new ideas. That doesn't mean they'll be accepted of course but having a new idea to discuss is a good starting point.
More a bit of lollygagging than starting.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Speaking of which whatever happened to lolly who used to post here? Not seen her in forever.
Emphasis on "new". Simply putting another label on old ideas or rephrasing things slightly doesn't make them new. They also need to have a base in reality and be possible in the near future - and not in the next decade.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
On an international scale within the next decade is in the near future. Especially if we're talking about a decade-long transition.
Erm, no. Sorry, dude, you guys don't even know what fresh chaos next month will bring for you. We won't commit to pie-in-the-sky promises from a clown cart government.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
They have specifically said that they are not going to negotiate the WA but that they are willing to be ambitious in the political declaration. If your new PM has any plan that doesn't include the WA the notion of transition or standstill is deader than British rule in India.
Congratulations America
without the WA there is a transition period of the time that passes between midnight on October 31st and the first second of November first.
Congratulations America
Fine by me. We get November to deal with any teething trouble, come December everyone's too distracted by Christmas and come the New Year we will look back on Brexit as last year's problem.
Alrighty then.
Congratulations America
Indeed. Then it'll be time to be getting on with tightening our wallets, dealing with shrinking incomes, less jobs available and generally being worse off.
I've had to lay off two of my team members last month. Thanks to Euroclearings moving out of London due to Brexit, we are shifting the entire operation to Paris. Thanks to that, and also thanks in part to no bank passporting guarantees coming as part of any deal proposed thus far, and certainly no passporting with no deal, the bank is currently reducing its UK headcount by 500 staff in a large layoff. All of my colleagues are either at risk or reducing the headcount in their teams.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 07-16-2019 at 09:55 AM.
That's a shame.
So, both Johnson and Hunt have ruled out the backstop completely, time limit or no.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...dead-1.3958525
So all Randblade's elaborate theory crafting about Johnson's masterplan to Use This One Weird Trick To Solve Brexit (Eurocrats hate him) was wishful thinking. Whoever could have seen this coming, except everyone?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
In my proposal that I think Johnson could propose there would be no backstop. So its consistent.
I said a 10 year standstill agreement in place of a 2 year transition agreement then backstop. Basically in other words a 10 year transition.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote