If momentum builds for a referendum extension of a50 would be sought and the EU would allow it.
If momentum builds for a referendum extension of a50 would be sought and the EU would allow it.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not going to happen. Realistically the government opposes it and that's not going to change (it would need to be a hostile amendment getting in to have a referendum). The government would fall if it backed an extension. An extension can only happen if we ask for it.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
I don't think it will happen, I'm just saying the time issue isn't the insurmountable obstacle.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well. I won't rest assured untill 00.01 on the 30th or march, 2019. I may pop open a bottle of something bubbly that day.
Congratulations America
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...el-gove-brexit
What an utter bloody stupid moron. Seriously. Does he not grasp what this paints his country as to the rest of the world they're hoping for deals with?
"Oh, yes, we'll make a deal. And even before we sign that deal we'll already think of breaking it!"
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?
Yes one that won't just put up with the status quo. If you're interested in only giving an extortionate Versailles-style deal because you think the UK needs one while exiting then that is only suitable for while exiting. Once we're out we have zero motive to put up with such bullshit.
If on the other hand you want to deal as equals a sensible long-term deal that is in everyone's interests to keep and not mess around with then fantastic. I'd love that but seen no evidence of it yet.
You may believe that deals magically last forever. I believe nothing lasts forever and a deal is only valid for as long as they're in all parties interests - so they'd better be in all parties interests.
It is interesting that you believe the UK has zero motive to engage in negotiations in good faith when it's generally believed that one should enter into agreements with the understanding that they will be kept.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I want to negotiate in good faith but I only want to keep the agreement if it is a good one. If you refuse to engage and deliver a good one then don't be surprised if its not kept for long, you should know that before you reach any agreement. At least we're being up front and honest about that.
If you don't think the agreement is good then fucking don't sign it in the first place you idiot.
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?
That was to be expected: You being once again utterly incapable of understanding what I wrote. I don't expect things to last forever. I also, however, expect honest trade partners NOT to PUBLICALLY think how to break a contract BEFORE you even have a contract, nevertheless sign it.
"Oh, I want to rent that car. If it turns out I don't like it do you mind if I just leave it in a ditch somewhere?"
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's more than one person in this country you idiot.
Even if Theresa May thinks its good it doesn't mean that everyone else does and a number of people have already said they think this proposed deal is a bad deal. Ministers have resigned over it, opinion polls show it is terribly unpopular. Gove specifically said that a future Prime Minister may change it - that future Prime Minister won't have signed it. What part of that is hard for you to comprehend, that we aren't one Borg Collective bound by today's transient PM?
"Oh, I want to rent that car. If it turns out I don't like it do you mind if I return it to you and rent another?" - You're not bound to one car rented forever.
This is nonsensical. If you believe the agreement is bad then don't accept it. To accept it with the intention of reneging on it later can in no way be described as "good faith".
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Every single option on offer is terribly unpopular.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Theresa May reckons its good and will sign it if it is agreed.
David Davis has said it is terrible, resigned from his post and won't sign it.
If in the future Theresa May goes and we elect David Davis to become Prime Minister then he won't be the one who signed it will he? In fact there's no scenario in which a "future Prime Minister" will be the PM who signed this deal.
Asked if the prime minister’s plan was permanent, he told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: “Yes, but there’s one critical thing, a future prime minister could always choose to alter the relationship between Britain and the European Union.
Indeed, so either put something else on offer or expect this to not settle the matter.
This is ridiculous. You're talking about an agreement between the UK and the EU, not an agreement between Theresa May and the EU. If you want to send the world a clear message that the UK believes its international agreements are no longer binding when it gets a new PM then you can expect a great deal of difficulties in your future negotiations. Gove's statements, like previous statements by his reptilian compatriots, only serve to obstruct negotiations. Crucially, this means that the EU will not allow even a hint of fudging on the language of the backstop, not even for the sake of calming down the increasingly ludicrous Tory civil war. It also does a great deal of damage to future negotiations on the future relationship.
You misunderstand. The impopularity of all options is a consequence of your decisions and your red lines. The EU cannot offer you anything popular because you are determined to walk a path that only entails unpopular outcomes.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes I do want to send that message crystal clear. Agreements are only binding for as long as all parties agree, if a new PM disagrees then they absolutely reserve the right to terminate any and all agreements. I've made that very clear.
Only if people are ignorant enough to find the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty shocking. It was the very purpose of the Leave campaign he fronted, to take back control. Once we've left absolutely if a deal is no good it can and should end. He's spent a long time campaigning on that very point so this isn't news, or shocking it is a point of principle.Gove's statements, like previous statements by his reptilian compatriots, only serve to obstruct negotiations.
I am glad Gove isn't disingenuously masking his principles in order to get an easy ride from those idiotic enough to believe today's agreement will last forever.
In which case we terminate the backstop if need be.Crucially, this means that the EU will not allow even a hint of fudging on the language of the backstop, not even for the sake of calming down the increasingly ludicrous Tory civil war. It also does a great deal of damage to future negotiations on the future relationship.
Its also due to your red lines. If you are willing to change those then a better deal can be agreed. You may be more willing to change in the future.You misunderstand. The impopularity of all options is a consequence of your decisions and your red lines. The EU cannot offer you anything popular because you are determined to walk a path that only entails unpopular outcomes.
Randblade is right, the only thing that he's wrong about is that he thinks the UK can live according to these rules with impunity. But the UK is much to small to expect others to simply put up with their voiding the game-book every time they have a change of heart. The UK is in the category where the big leaguers take out their brass knuckles and make them eat their teeth alongside their big words.
Congratulations America
Where did I say we could do so with impunity? It takes two to tango.
If we can't reach a deal with a third party because they don't think it's in our interests to keep it long term then so be it. That's not the sort of deal we should be agreeing.
If we can reach mutually beneficial agreements that both parties are confident the other side won't want to reverse it then great. That's good.
You still don't understand that if you go into a negotiation with THAT openly displayed mindset then your trade "partner" will become quite a bit more antagonistic. Never play poker, Rand.
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?
I do play Poker. In Poker you need to be prepared to walk away from a hand no matter how much you want to play it. You also need to go in with an open mindset being prepared to do the unexpected, if you're predicatable you lose.
I want my "partner" to know that I have that mindset. If they're willing to reach a mutually-beneficial deal then the idea that we keep the deal mutually-beneficial is not a problem. Its only a problem if they think they can screw us over in which case fuck them.
But we aren't your partner. Nor are we your friends. You are a supplicant. It's kind of interesting how you Brits don't get this even after this Brexit nonsense so far.
Congratulations America
What you're doing here? You're showing your hand, that is what you're doing. And for all your talk about being "unpredictable" you just made yourself plenty predictable by showing your hand.
This is the most bloody stupid negotiation tactic there is.
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?
The whole poker analogy is rubbish. It's not a game of poker and if it were it would be played with the cards open. For the simple reason we know everything there is to be known about them.
Congratulations America
No we are not showing our hand. We are saying that the future depends upon future Prime Ministers and future elections. As it should! Unless you know the results of future elections it means anything is possible.
I think a better analogy is seeing Theresa May as the British Kerensky. Which also explains Corbyn's strategy.
Congratulations America
What is possible is what we allow to be possible. Your side is fairly irrelevant to the outcome.
Congratulations America
Yes, you have made your questionable and borderline absurd position clear, but you continue to ignore the broader significance of this. The significance of the UK adopting this stance (which it has been generally careful to avoid) is that it cannot be regarded as a trustworthy partner.
True, Gove pushing a governance-through-mendacity policy is entirely in character. It is, however, out of character for the UK. At least, it was, until fairly recently.Only if people are ignorant enough to find the notion of Parliamentary Sovereignty shocking. It was the very purpose of the Leave campaign he fronted, to take back control. Once we've left absolutely if a deal is no good it can and should end. He's spent a long time campaigning on that very point so this isn't news, or shocking it is a point of principle.
Consider that you then risk reneging not only on your agreement with the EU but also on your promises to Ireland and your obligations under the WTO framework. A country that cannot keep its word is nearly as contemptible as an individual who can't keep his word. I understand honesty means nothing to you personally these days, but it does mean something to other people.In which case we terminate the backstop if need be.
Nonsense. The EU's laws and rules, the GFA's requirements, the WTO's rules and the necessary implications for cross-border trade, regulations etc. were all known to you when you set down your red lines. The responsibility for you being screwed by path-dependency is entirely yours because you chose the path.Its also due to your red lines. If you are willing to change those then a better deal can be agreed. You may be more willing to change in the future.
You should not agree to any deal that you do not intend to honour.
Poker is not exactly the best analogy for a good faith negotiation. If you insist on using the analogy, this is analogous to one over-confident player placing bets while announcing that he expects to be able to take his money back out of the pot on the river if it turns out his bluff is going to get him screwed. It's true that you have to be willing to walk away, but, to the extent that a negotiation is a single hand, you lose the pot you walk away from right at the end (noting once again that "walking away" is a better move when it preserves the status quo than when it is significantly worse than the status quo). If you keep trying to break or skirt the rules, it's unlikely anyone will want to play with you. In matters of international negotiations, unpredictability can be a useful tactic in some situations, but going back on your word isn't conducive to negotiations on things like trade. Businesses do not appreciate unpredictability. Ordinary people whose lives and livelihoods depend on laws and agreements do not appreciate unpredictability.
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but the party saying they expect to tear up the agreements they've concluded is the party thinking they can screw the other party over, which is how this is being viewed all over the world.Its only a problem if they think they can screw us over in which case fuck them.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I wonder if Randy still likes project fear now that it's not just scaremongering but an avalanche of bad news.
Congratulations America
Stories of people finding out that their lives will be upended b/c of the UK's folly & the HO's characteristic fuckery are growing more numerous by the day.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote