A plan that relies on others acting exactly as you need and expect them to act isn't a plan, it's a wish.
I'd have thought the past 2 years would have taught you that.
A plan that relies on others acting exactly as you need and expect them to act isn't a plan, it's a wish.
I'd have thought the past 2 years would have taught you that.
Last edited by Steely Glint; 01-10-2019 at 07:57 PM.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
It doesn't rely upon others.
May has relied upon others [while winding up those same others] by banging on about no deal being better than a bad deal but making clear she'd accept any crap deal, folding on everything and thus not countenancing no deal. Then somehow thinking that a majority in Parliament will cravenly sign whatever BS she signs.
The alternative is to seek a good deal (but time is realistically up for that) while literally as May claimed prefering no deal over a bad deal.
As the old Irish joke to get to a good deal "I wouldn't start from here" but given we are here and time is up I would begrudgingly accept we have no deal and exit on no deal terms. As discussed in the post I quoted earlier, most of the dire warnings from no deal are extremely overblown anyway. Once outside I would look to immediately start trying to negotiate a new (good) deal offering as a sweetener that a good deal can resolve the Irish border better than us being in a no deal scenario and that the money we were due to pay is still available but only upon signing a good deal with us.
There may be some disruption but overall it will be much less than feared. Not a good situation to be in, but its where we are now.
My alternative plan would be to request an extension of Article 50 until the end of 2020 as an alternative to a transition but on the understanding that we park the backstop and instead immediately start negotiating the future trade agreement as would be negotiated during a transition. That removes the cliff edge for now, deals with the Irish border for now, continues payments for now while allowing talks to get onto where they belong. And if a future trade agreement can be reached in that time then the Irish backstop which is preventing Parliament from ratifying the deal becomes moot. That would require unanimity from the other 27 so isn't guaranteed, in which case we stick with Plan B.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Your international relations don't depend on others? Interesting.
As for your alternative plan, that was killed in the first five minutes of the negotiations.
Congratulations America
Not especially on others no if we rely upon international norms more instead of cravenly seeking whatever scraps we can be given. If you want to talk to us once we're out only then lets talk once we're out - and hold our cash and 100% control of the Irish border until then.
Alternatively we can talk now. It was killed then, but it may be time to revisit that now over facing a hard border in Ireland because Parliament can't ratify the deal.
Interesting how you are in favor of a rules based system, where your whole brexit is a rejection of a rules based system.
As for the money; you're going to pay that with or without a deal.
Congratulations America
* chin stroking gif *My alternative plan would be to request an extension of Article 50 until the end of 2020 as an alternative to a transition but on the understanding that we park the backstop and instead immediately start negotiating the future trade agreement as would be negotiated during a transition. That removes the cliff edge for now, deals with the Irish border for now, continues payments for now while allowing talks to get onto where they belong. And if a future trade agreement can be reached in that time then the Irish backstop which is preventing Parliament from ratifying the deal becomes moot. That would require unanimity from the other 27 so isn't guaranteed, in which case we stick with Plan B.
ok chief
I agree extending Article 50 is the best option, but I assume the hard brexiters will attempt to sabotage that and I don't really know how that would play out.
You said yourself in that post that the biggest problems from a No Deal Brexit will come from things no one has thought of, so how can you possibly know that the threat of no-deal is overblown? Why assume an unknown like that is going to resolve itself in your favour?As discussed in the post I quoted earlier, most of the dire warnings from no deal are extremely overblown anyway.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Because he said so.
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?
There is no majority in parliament for No Deal. The major advantage No Deal proponents have is that it is the default outcome. Extending the A50 period for a year and a half is very unlikely unless there are momentous changes. The EU has already made concessions by essentially setting out the outlines of a future relationship during the withdrawal agreement negotiations.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No other comparable nation in the entire world trades exclusively on WTO terms.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nor would we. We're already looking at rolling over and adopting/adapting existing EU FTAs with third party nations and looking to strike new ones too. We'd hold the door open to a UK/EU FTA the moment the EU wants to talk.
I specifically said that if that doesn't get unanimity then we stick with Plan B (WTO deal for now).
I don't think they can and if its an alternative to the transition then I don't think they would.I agree extending Article 50 is the best option, but I assume the hard brexiters will attempt to sabotage that and I don't really know how that would play out.
Because they'll be irritating teething problems not the ludicrous "OMG planes won't fly", "WTF there'll be no insulin" bullshit we've been threatened with.You said yourself in that post that the biggest problems from a No Deal Brexit will come from things no one has thought of, so how can you possibly know that the threat of no-deal is overblown? Why assume an unknown like that is going to resolve itself in your favour?
And you think that's good, do you?
Why will they?Because they'll be irritating teething problems not the ludicrous "OMG planes won't fly", "WTF there'll be no insulin" bullshit we've been threatened with.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Actually, it is the fact that the EU is preparing temporary and unilateral rules that enable your planes to fly. It is nothing you could have done if we hadn’t thought it expedient.
Last edited by Hazir; 01-11-2019 at 06:42 AM.
Congratulations America
... there is no "WTO deal for now". That's just an amalgamation of several pieces of confused Brexiter nonsense. "WTO deal" = "no deal on trade".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That's very cute but what's actually happening is that you're asking other countries to pretend you'll still be a part of the EU after Brexit day—pretty please—and those countries are saying, "Meh, we'll see." Because they're not idiots and they recognize not only that they can exact more concessions from the UK but also that the outcome of the WA negotiations is likely to affect their trade with the UK.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Besides which, the reputation of the UK as a reliable partner is trashed with the ‘no money’ talk.That's very cute but what's actually happening is that you're asking other countries to pretend you'll still be a part of the EU after Brexit day—pretty please
Congratulations America
The constant public proclamations that the UK doesn't have to abide by any agreements is indeed likely to have repercussions for future UK trade negotiations. At a minimum, there's probably going to be a much stronger insistence on clear, legally binding text for practically everything.
As for Brexiters paying lip-service to the constitution while spitting on the same, some incisive (as always) commentary from David Allen Green:
https://www.ft.com/content/c47e7ee4-...1-4ff78404524e
Twitter thread version:Outrage at John Bercow is the sound of a constitution working
Uproar at a move from the House of Commons Speaker is misplaced
The sound of UK government ministers complaining that they cannot get their way, and of the outrage of the government-supporting press, is one of a working constitution.
The recent decision by John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, to allow a vote on an amendment on a government business motion has prompted Tory unhappiness and screaming front page headlines in the rightwing press. Even on its own merits, the subject is arcane. One suspects that few of those supposedly upset by this development knew or cared whether such votes were possible before a few days ago.
In fact, there is little to be genuinely concerned about in what happened. All the Speaker did was to allow MPs to vote on how the business of the House should be conducted. The government’s real problem is not that the vote took place, but that it no longer has a working majority on Brexit issues. And the outcome of the vote was sensible: it obliges the government to act swiftly if, as is expected, it loses the “meaningful” vote next week on accepting the Brexit withdrawal agreement. Only a knavish or foolish partisan could be vexed by this.
The artificial nature of this uproar is underlined by the fact that there have been many constitutional trespasses over the past three or so years, almost all of which have received little more than a shrug from government-supporting MPs and pundits.
Theresa May’s government prolonged the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there would not be a Queen’s Speech on which they could lose a vote. The government packed the standing committees (which scrutinise legislation) with Conservative majorities by procedural sleight of hand, despite there being a hung parliament. A secretary of state repeatedly misled the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports. The government deliberately broke the Commons’ “pairing” convention when an opposition MP was on maternity leave so that the government could win a vote.
And there are more. The government repeatedly ignored and does not even participate in votes on opposition motions. The government committed itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the Democratic Unionist party for support in a supply and confidence arrangement. The government repeatedly seeks to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations. The government seeks to legislate for staggeringly wider “Henry VIII powers” so that it can legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament.
The government even sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval and forced the litigation to go all the way to the Supreme Court (where it lost). The government employed three QCs to oppose the litigation on whether Article 50 could be revoked unilaterally (which it also lost).
There are even more serious examples. This government became the first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament. This government even stood by as there were nasty and unfair public attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service.
Each of these were instances of a government wanting to get its way. But a constitution is not there to make it easy for the executive to do as it wishes. Instead, a constitution should provide checks and balances so that no one element of the state has absolute power.
Mr Bercow did more in allowing that vote to “bring back control” than any single leave-supporting MP has done since the referendum. The popular press should be celebrating that an over-mighty executive was halted and that the people’s representatives got to have their say. But so government-minded have many commentators and politicians become that it seems to them like constitutional carnage when the government hears “no”. They should have been more worried by the possibility that parliament would not have prevailed.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/...90033082249217
Follow-up, with response to an objection:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/...33905704546304
(unrolled: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...704546304.html)
1.
In summary, the objection was along the lines of "two wrongs don't make a right".
(Or in this case, fourteen wrongs don't make a right.)
This response is, however, misconceived.
2.
The decision by the Speaker does not need to be justified by pointing to the government's many constitutional trespasses.
This is because the Speaker's decision can be justified entirely on its own terms.
It is a welcome and liberal decision.
3.
The Speaker's decision meant that it was MPs, and not the government, which have ultimate control over the business of the House of Commons.
There can be no good objection to this.
4.
To the extent it set a precedent, it is a welcome precedent.
To the extent it was novel, it was a welcome novelty.
5.
And even if it was against "advice", it was the Speaker's decision.
Advisers advise.
(And those asserting it was wrong for the Speaker to go against such advice usually are those who, without a second thought, elsewhere rail against "unelected bureaucrats". The irony.)
6.
If MPs do not want to amend a government business (ie, timetable) motion then they can simply vote against amending it.
The Speaker's decision, however, now gives them the choice.
7.
The real problem, of course, is that the government has now lost its working majority on Brexit issues.
If it still had that majority, such a vote would be a non-issue. The government would win.
That is what hurts.
8.
And so, there is no need to say "fourteen wrongs justify a right" or whatever.
The Speaker's decisions was sound and commendable.
The central point of my thread and of my post was different.
9.
Constitutional principles matter.
The synthetic uproar at the Bercow decision deployed the language of constitutional first principle. Such rhetoric is heady and dramatic.
10.
But that rhetoric falls flat when it is used selectively.
You cannot plausibly show constitutional outrage when you have nodded-along with (or even joined in with) violations of constitutional first principle.
11.
Each of the examples cited yesterday are greater or lesser constitutional tresspases.
Not one of them prompted the outrage from those supposedly outraged yesterday.
Not one.
12.
And why was that?
It was because each of those fourteen constitutional trespasses were to the benefit of the government and its Brexit policy.
Bercow's decision was not.
That is the crucial difference.
13.
A constitution is not there to allow the government do as it wishes.
A constitution provides checks and balances to each element of the state.
It would have been constitutional outrage had the Speaker *not* allowed such a vote, given that the majority of MPs wanted it.
14.
The real objection to the Speaker's decision is that it did not support the government over parliament.
And when you think of it, that is not really much of a constitutional objection at all.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Maybe this is a way RandBlade can understand the real meaning of 'no deal'. No deal = you getting the same deal but under worse conditions.
Congratulations America
Dude.
The period of time needed to strike a trade deal between countries is measured in years. There's no such thing as "copy&paste" in trade deals with foreign countries.
Not to mention that you don't even have the personell do strike such deals.
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?
Dude, I'm looking forward decades. The period of time between referendums was over 4 decades. If we'd stayed we'd have possibly remained for centuries. What's a few years between friends?
Must be seen to be believed:
Twitter Link
This shows a remarkable level of contempt for the law.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think it showed a level of contempt for the grandstanding questioner yes. :haya:
Love the "there you go" at the end.
So what is the deal? You're gonna roll over existing deals or are you going to be without for decades?
Congratulations America
So what is the deal? You're gonna roll over existing deals or are you going to be without for decades?
Congratulations America
... this is creepy and weird, even for you during your ongoing Trumpian metamorphosis. Do you believe the govt. is not required to follow laws? Do you believe the govt. is allowed to lie to Parliament? This govt. has already been found in contempt of Parliament, the first govt. in the UK's history to suffer that humiliation. Just how much more do you wish to debase yourself and your country? This gammon-like attitude of yours is utterly contemptible.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I believe the government is required to follow laws. I believe this government is badly mismanaged and incompetent and while infinitely better than the alternative on the benches opposite I think it is the worst performing Tory government of my lifetime. I can not wait until the leadership is replaced. I think showing contempt to Parliament (though that was a largely partisan vote) was pathetically stupid especially since they knew the numbers were not on their side. Where have you confused me as a loyalist to May who thinks she's doing everything right? Have I not voiced my concerns clearly enough to you, did you not understand the frequent times I've said I have no respect for this government clearly enough?
I also think the issue here is blatantly obvious and is the same one I've been bemoaning for a long time. The government [naively] assumed no deal would never happen, never properly planned for it, assumed that Parliament would endorse any deal they came back with because there would be no alternative.
On the specific issue of these contracts, it makes perfect sense to act this way given the way they'd acted earlier. While the prior operating assumption was that the Parliament would ratify the deal it made no sense to have these contracts. Once it became clear Parliament wouldn't, then suddenly actions that should have been planned longer ago became more urgent.
The government should have planned seriously for no deal all along and treated it as a viable Plan B all along. The deal would likely have been more agreeable had they done so and we'd be more prepared had they done so. Not planning for no deal makes as little sense as not have an army - yes we don't actively want a war/no deal, but its a risk that should be mitigated again and planned for in case it happens. Otherwise the only alternative is abject and humiliating surrender.
As if you could plan for no deal.
Congratulations America
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Hope is the denial of reality
He enjoyed that
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote