Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

Absolutely not the case that a negotiation without a deal leaves you with the status quo. One negotiation I was involved in (but didn't lead) was following the Council announcing a compulsory purchase order on a building we owned and operated a business from. The Council were going to [and subsequently have] bulldoze that quarter of the town centre for redevelopment so all businesses in that portion of town needed to be cleared. First step is to negotiate a sale with the Council, if that fails it goes to court. Either way the status quo was no longer an option the second the decision was made to bulldoze that area. That decision to bulldoze town and redevelop it was akin to the Brexit referendum and the formal notification and start of negotiations was akin to Article 50.

[Hazir]

Absolutely not the case that a negotiation without a deal leaves you with the status quo. One negotiation I was involved in (but didn't lead) was following the Council announcing a compulsory purchase order on a building we owned and operated a business from. The Council were going to [and subsequently have] bulldoze that quarter of the town centre for redevelopment so all businesses in that portion of town needed to be cleared. First step is to negotiate a sale with the Council, if that fails it goes to court. Either way the status quo was no longer an option the second the decision was made to bulldoze that area. That decision to bulldoze town and redevelop it was akin to the Brexit referendum and the formal notification and start of negotiations was akin to Article 50.

What you described is not a negotiation.

[RandBlade]

What you described is not a negotiation.

Yes it was. We had proposals go back and forth and ended up with an agreement that satisfied both parties, that was nothing like their original proposal. That is a negotiation.

[Hazir]

Yes it was. We had proposals go back and forth and ended up with an agreement that satisfied both parties, that was nothing like their original proposal. That is a negotiation.

And if you hadn't agreed another branch of government would have set fair compensation. End of story.

[RandBlade]

Yes and their definition of fair compensation would not have been what we negotiated. It would have been far closer to the Councils original proposal to us.

[Hazir]

Yes and their definition of fair compensation would not have been what we negotiated. It would have been far closer to the Councils original proposal to us.

Still not a negotiation; out of court settlement. If the asked price would have exceeded the costs of a court case plus fair compensation you’d have been in court.
Your room for manoeuvre was strictly deliniated by their rules.

The only thing you are right about is that it resembles the Brexit talks.

[RandBlade]

An out of court settlement only happens after a period of negotiation. That's literally what the word means.

Negotiation
noun
1. discussion aimed at reaching an agreement.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yes it was. We had proposals go back and forth and ended up with an agreement that satisfied both parties, that was nothing like their original proposal. That is a negotiation.

Wait, so you had a negotiation which had a result?

You know what's that called? "A deal".

[RandBlade]

Yes. You're point being?

All along I've said we should prepare for no deal, but seek a deal. I've also said all along I expect a deal.

That's still my position. This bodged deal is dead in the water, it won't go through Parliament. So my suggestion is that May's successor goes back to the EU and Ireland and says the backstop can't get through Parliament, but scratch that out and we have a workable deal. Then its in your hands. If you agree this deal minus the backstop then great, we have a deal that gets through Parliament. If not we go to our backstop which is our no deal preparations and Ireland gets the immediate hard border for the 80% of its exports that its been trying to avoid.

[Hazir]

Yes. You're point being?

All along I've said we should prepare for no deal, but seek a deal. I've also said all along I expect a deal.

That's still my position. This bodged deal is dead in the water, it won't go through Parliament. So my suggestion is that May's successor goes back to the EU and Ireland and says the backstop can't get through Parliament, but scratch that out and we have a workable deal. Then its in your hands. If you agree this deal minus the backstop then great, we have a deal that gets through Parliament. If not we go to our backstop which is our no deal preparations and Ireland gets the immediate hard border for the 80% of its exports that its been trying to avoid.

You're wasting everyone's time with your dreams of any better deal. You either take this one or face the consequences, we'll be too busy to talk with you once the shit hits the fan, so you're going to have to deal with the chaos all on your own.

Last of all; let me remind you that a cliff edge Brexit is playing right into the hands of the nationalists in NI.

[RandBlade]

I'm prepared to face the consequences then. But I think the Irish are bluffing. The idea they'd rather a hard border today than a commitment to avoid a hard border in the future is total bullshit.

[Hazir]

I'm prepared to face the consequences then. But I think the Irish are bluffing. The idea they'd rather a hard border today than a commitment to avoid a hard border in the future is total bullshit.

You declaration of preparedness sounds hollow; nobody is prepared for what he can’t believe will happen. As for the Irish; that hard border may very well turn out to be in the Irish sea. Once the DUP has (over)played its hand in Westminster, the majority of the people in NI could easily decide not to follow GB out of the EU.

[RandBlade]

Fantastic! We won't have to subsidise that pesky province with billions in fiscal transfers to them anymore. Of course if the Republic were to unite with Northern Ireland and continue to subsidise them at the rate we do at the moment then that would blow a hole in their budget more expensive than either the financial crisis or German reunification. But that'll be their problem not ours.

[Aimless]

What meltdown?

As evinced by your increasingly frantic flailing around for ways to pin all of this on May. This is Little England at its littlest, eerily reminiscent of the performances the English put on when their delusional fantasies about winning the world cup are dashed against the rocks of reality.

The reality is that the negotiations have played out the way you would expect, given the mandate Brexiters sought and were given by your nutty electorate. May didn't dream up the UK's red lines during a particularly wild acid trip--those lines were a direct translation of the mandate from the referendum, and of the demands from within her party of idiots. It is not May's fault a bunch of snakes, with no skin in the game, saw fit to promise the public a fiesta of unicorns and eternal cakes. May cannot turn delusions into reality. She cannot be expected to deliver on promises made by dissembling or just plain ignorant Brexiters on the EU's behalf.

Rule #1 though is don't antagonise those you're negotiating with. Its dumb, dumb, dumb. [...] Her deal is as dead as a dodo, it will not pass Parliament and it didn't need to come to this. The backstop that has completely screwed up negotiations for the past year wasn't even part of the EU's original proposals! It only came into play after she'd spent months antagonising them and refusing to talk.

This is nonsense. The possible negative impact of May's "antagonism" pales in significance when compared to the impact of legal, political and market realities, of the red lines--a reasonable translation of the public's will as well as of the will of Tory Brexiters--and that of remarks, made by prominent Brexiters, that repeatedly reminded the EU the UK can not be trusted--or even be regarded as a friend. The backstop came about as a consequence of everyone realizing that the version of Brexit Little Englanders had chosen to pursue would not lead to a satisfying solution to the Irish border issue during the negotiation of the WA. That's not May's fault, nor is it the EU's fault; it is the fault of those who voted for and tried to hammer through a version of Brexit that clashes with reality. The greater part of May's negotiation activity has involved negotiating with ignorant, incompetent and irresponsible members of her own party.

Absolutely not the case that a negotiation without a deal leaves you with the status quo.

People who believed that the UK holds all the cards, and that "no deal is better than a bad deal", approached the WA negotiations as if they were negotiating the kind of international agreement where walking away preserves the status quo--in their favour no less. Commentators who did not have their heads stuck up their asses have pointed out, from the very beginning, that this is not such a scenario.

[Aimless]

Fantastic! We won't have to subsidise that pesky province with billions in fiscal transfers to them anymore. Of course if the Republic were to unite with Northern Ireland and continue to subsidise them at the rate we do at the moment then that would blow a hole in their budget more expensive than either the financial crisis or German reunification. But that'll be their problem not ours.

(remember, RB really cares about the people of NI)

[RandBlade]

(remember, RB really cares about the people of NI)

I do, any changes should be their choice not forced on them by us. Hence why I won't sign away their rights to elect those who set their laws, nor will I cut the strings tying us together no matter how financially beneficial it would be to us.

Northern Ireland is a drain on us, but they're also part of our nation and as such I will protect them.

[RandBlade]

As evinced by your increasingly frantic flailing around for ways to pin all of this on May. This is Little England at its littlest, eerily reminiscent of the performances the English put on when their delusional fantasies about winning the world cup are dashed against the rocks of reality.

The reality is that the negotiations have played out the way you would expect, given the mandate Brexiters sought and were given by your nutty electorate. May didn't dream up the UK's red lines during a particularly wild acid trip--those lines were a direct translation of the mandate from the referendum, and of the demands from within her party of idiots. It is not May's fault a bunch of snakes, with no skin in the game, saw fit to promise the public a fiesta of unicorns and eternal cakes. May cannot turn delusions into reality. She cannot be expected to deliver on promises made by dissembling or just plain ignorant Brexiters on the EU's behalf.

There has been no dissembling and there has been upfront honesty. We never claimed we could stay in the Single Market and the Customs Union while ending free movement and ending fiscal contributions. We made a choice which had both pros and cons.

This is nonsense. The possible negative impact of May's "antagonism" pales in significance when compared to the impact of legal, political and market realities, of the red lines--a reasonable translation of the public's will as well as of the will of Tory Brexiters--and that of remarks, made by prominent Brexiters, that repeatedly reminded the EU the UK can not be trusted--or even be regarded as a friend. The backstop came about as a consequence of everyone realizing that the version of Brexit Little Englanders had chosen to pursue would not lead to a satisfying solution to the Irish border issue during the negotiation of the WA. That's not May's fault, nor is it the EU's fault; it is the fault of those who voted for and tried to hammer through a version of Brexit that clashes with reality. The greater part of May's negotiation activity has involved negotiating with ignorant, incompetent and irresponsible members of her own party.

The red lines are entirely rational and consistent, they are also in accordance with your four freedoms Single Market rules. Had we proposed to stay in the Single Market with those red lines then that would be unicorns. To leave the Single Market and have those red lines is entirely logically consistent with a Canadian style Free Trade Agreement - as Barnier himself said at the start.

As for the Irish border it is a non-issue. There are 2 ways this could be dealt with in seconds. Firstly and simplest is to kick the can, the transition agreement keeps an open border and simply sign up to a commitment that both parties agree to keep the border issue in any future relationship agreement. Ultimately after transition we're still going to want a deal and you're still not going to agree one without an open border so there's no problem.

The alternative permanent solution and guarantee is to agree to keep the border open in accordance with the Security Concerns rules of the World Trade Organisation. WTO rules specifically permit variances on the grounds of security and it is clearly a security concern that is the issue so we can simply both agree to keep it open and sign a treaty accordingly if need be. Then even if tariffs or customs controls came in between the UK and EU shutting down Dover/Calais, the Irish border can be kept open on grounds of security. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/t...land-1.3711188

The reality is that the Irish border is a non-issue that has been blown up to try to extort the UK at the risk of aggravating violence and stirring up sectarian tensions. It is reprehensible.

People who believed that the UK holds all the cards, and that "no deal is better than a bad deal", approached the WA negotiations as if they were negotiating the kind of international agreement where walking away preserves the status quo--in their favour no less. Commentators who did not have their heads stuck up their asses have pointed out, from the very beginning, that this is not such a scenario.

I never behaved that way. I believe that no deal is worse than a good deal. But no deal is better than a bad deal. My preference all along is a good deal.

Good deal > no deal > bad deal is kind of a logical truism

Incidentally I also believe no deal is worse than remaining for what its worth. By definition a bad deal is worse than remaining then too.

[Steely Glint]

Ace of Hearts: This was our choice.May has acted afraid and recalcitrant, like she's worried but 'doing her duty' in doing what the voters said, instead of doing what she wanted. This makes it very easy for the EU to threaten negative consequences and get her to back down as a result. For someone who campaigned for this to happen the idea of threatening consequences would have been dismissed as "we know that, we chose it".

No, they couldn't, especially if the leader was one of the Brexiters who was making a lot of noise during the referendum because they'd still have to stick to the line they gave out during the referendum: that Brexit would have no serious consequences, that doing a deal with the EU would be easy because something something German car manufacturers. This is a big part of the reason May has been allowed to remain leader. If someone like Johnson tried this approach, everyone would be, like, "you said it would never come to this, what the fuck Boris".

Ace of Diamonds: Money, money, money
Unlike Greece which desperately needed money from the ECB to keep their banks open and pay the bills, the EU wants our money.

This is the only one of these that is actually any kind of card that we hold.

Ace of Spades: First mover.
The vote caught the EU off guard, the genuinely weren't expecting we'd actually do it, and following that they waited for us to propose our solutions. We didn't do so. We waited, stalled and May chose to 'keep her cards close to her chest' until belatedly the Commission got fed up and came up with their own proposals which then have become the outcome. Had May come up with a fleshed our proposal like Chequers when she invoked Article 50 that would have set the groundwork to build on, instead of chucking away that opportunity and waiting for the Commission to do her work for her.

We weren't expecting we'd do it either, no one was expecting leave to win. So the reason she didn't immediately make proposals was that they didn't exist yet. This is also true of Brexiters who have never had anything more than a lot of bombast and false confidence and a few vague ideas.

Ace of Clubs: Parliament.
[Another user there] suggested that a 'real Brexiteer' being able to command support in Parliament better was a 'flying unicorn' but of course that would have happened. Parliament was top ace for May. The Tories had an overall majority in Parliament and an opposition led by Jeremy Corbyn who was no confidenced by almost all his own MPs but clung on. She chucked away an overall majority, a 20+ point lead in the polls, a divided opposition and an opposition leader who wasn't taken seriously by calling an election then failing to turn up to the debates or win a majority.

I don't really see how this is is some kind of 'ace'. It's nicer for the EU to deal with someone who's going to be able to pretty confidently say that whatever deal is agreed at the end is going to be ratified, but she's hardly going to be able to say "you'd better give me what I want or parliament will agree to everything I say" is she? If anything, being able to say "I need this concession or this won't get through parliament" might be in her favor.

Also, her majority was small - I think it was 8 or 12 or something? - before the 2017 election, and given the scale of opposition amongst Tories to this proposal even if she hadn't called the election she would still be struggling to get this deal through parliament.

[Hazir]

I think May got a deal much much better than I thought possible before the WA was published. I doubt the EU will re-negotiate on the basis of the present WA if this treaty isn't ratified by the UK.

[Steely Glint]

They might be prepared to tweak it a bit, but not enough to make enough Tory Euroskeptics happy. The deal will fail to get through parliament, and then the UK will ask for an extension the deal will be tweaked and fail a second vote, then there will be a second referendum between remain and a hard Brexit. Hopefully, the extension will give everyone enough time to actually prep for a no-deal Brexit, most of really serious potential consequences seem to come from the UK just dropping out of the EU overnight, it shouldn't be too bad given a year or so to get ready.

[RandBlade]

If only we had been given 2 years in order to get ready.

I think May has tried not to prepare for alternatives in order to then claim hers is the only option only for others (EU at Salzburg, MPs at Westminster) to say no.

Britain needed a leader in 2016. We didn't get one.

[Timbuk2]

Britain needed a leader in 2016. We didn't get one.

Indeed. Cameron should have been strong and led in 2016, rather than being weak and allowing the dimwit public a referendum.

[Steely Glint]

Proposal for the question in a second referendum:

[Hazir]

They missed the 'Brexit is Brexit' Brexit.

But while you 're at it. Can you guys remember it's not enough to merely agree with eachother?

[Hazir]

They missed the 'Brexit is Brexit' Brexit.

But while you 're at it. Can you guys remember it's not enough to merely agree with eachother?

[Steely Glint]

One thing at a time.

[Hazir]

Haha, if the ECJ follows the advice of the AG and the chaos in Westminster doesn't abaite this whole 2,5 years may turn out to have been just much ado about nothing.

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, the chaos would have to abate because the AG also said that the British government would have to do a vote on that. Only then could a unilateral revocation be considered.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

Well, the chaos would have to abate because the AG also said that the British government would have to do a vote on that. Only then could a unilateral revocation be considered.

I read the opinion, and even though I hate it, I think it is consistent and logical. But TBH this may be the part where so much shit is thrown at the fan that the mechanism may fail . I think the ECJ will do nobody a favor by following it in its ruling. Opening up the actual possibility of a cancelation of Brexit by Parliament may very well push the UK into a constitional crisis on the scale we have not seen since the Glorious Revolution. The Remainers may have the numbers, but they don't have the legitimacy nor could they push through their policy without tearing both government and the opposition to shreds.