Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[ceptimus]

No, actually you didn't. You made assertions that were shown to be nonsense.

How about you support your claims with facts and evidence? For a change...

Come on. You can do better than that. I post facts. You claim they're not facts. Then you want me to "support" the facts?

They were simple facts that no sane person who understands English could disagree with.

Here they are again, in case you've forgotten:

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

Fact 2: There are two ways of leaving: with a deal or without one.

Fact 3: At the moment, only one deal is available, and the EU are insistent that it can't be changed.

Fact 4: MPs won't vote for the deal - they've already voted 3 times against it - effectively five times if you count the two times a proposed vote was delayed for weeks or scrapped because the government knew it would lose.

0/10 Must try harder.

 

[The Don]

I investigated this further. To be eligible for a residency permit in Malta in the first place you have to fulfil the following criteria:


So ISTM that to get the bonus 10-year bonus residence as a no-deal UK citizen you need to have five years of living in the country first, so not much different from elsewhere in Europe.

You've fundamentally misunderstood. Being resident in Malta != having a Malta permanent resident permit.

The Maltese are saying that as long as you are resident, you don't need a permanent residence permit, you will get the deal.

OK,so let's say you don't quite qualify, even if you have lived there five years, you then get treated as 'third country' and this is the frightening bit:

Somehow, Malta doesn't look so attractive after all.

And all the rest of this stems from your initial misunderstanding.

As long as you are a resident in Malta when the UK leaves the EU, you will have 10 years living in Malta, during which time you can work towards your permanent residence permit should you choose.

 

[The Don]

More smooth planning from the government regarding Brexit

Up to three-quarters of civil servants shifted to emergency Brexit preparation duties before the original 29 March deadline have since been stood down, data obtained by BBC Newsnight shows.

However, hundreds of Whitehall staff now face being reassigned again to get ready for the new 31 October exit date.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48883817

 

[Vixen]

You've fundamentally misunderstood. Being resident in Malta != having a Malta permanent resident permit.

The Maltese are saying that as long as you are resident, you don't need a permanent residence permit, you will get the deal.



And all the rest of this stems from your initial misunderstanding.

As long as you are a resident in Malta when the UK leaves the EU, you will have 10 years living in Malta, during which time you can work towards your permanent residence permit should you choose.

Well, OK, please explain how one proves one's residency in Malta? Take Finland. It is allowing Brits in Finland to 'apply for residency permits' (='settled status' UK equivalent) up until the end of 2020 [if no deal]. So Malta is allowing up to 2030, but who would want to apply for settled status in Malta anyway unless you already live there or plan to live there at least five years continuously without leaving the country for longer than six months.

Heck, the UK allows its foreigners to leave the country for 'up to two years' without affecting their settled status, so I can't see that Malta's offer is meaningful to the average Brit currently living in the UK and looking to escape Brexit.

 

[lomiller]

I'm sure Parliament will agree on one thing: send BJ to Brussels to beg for even more time.

More likely, Parliament votes to have BJ “negotiate a better deal” even though from the EU perspective the negotiating is over. This would likely appease any MP’s opposed to a no-deal Brexit even though the inevitable result is still a no deal Brexit on Oct 31.

 

[The Don]

Well, OK, please explain how one proves one's residency in Malta? Take Finland. It is allowing Brits in Finland to 'apply for residency permits' (='settled status' UK equivalent) up until the end of 2020 [if no deal]. So Malta is allowing up to 2030, but who would want to apply for settled status in Malta anyway unless you already live there or plan to live there at least five years continuously without leaving the country for longer than six months.

I don't know the ins and outs of either country's residency programme but it seems that in Finland you can apply for settled status until 2020 but presumably you'd have to satisfy the requirements at the point you apply.

Regarding you comments about applying for settled status in Malta, presumably the same is true for any country you're applying for residency in.

Heck, the UK allows its foreigners to leave the country for 'up to two years' without affecting their settled status, so I can't see that Malta's offer is meaningful to the average Brit currently living in the UK and looking to escape Brexit.

That wasn't the point, the point was that Malta has one of the most generous programmes. I think that point has been made.

 

[ceptimus]

More smooth planning from the government regarding Brexit



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48883817

In fairness, if they were still planning now for a 29 March exit, that would be something of a non-job.

You would have thought their bosses would have the gumption to cross out the date and write instead, 'until it actually happens or is permanently ruled out.'

 

[Vixen]

More likely, Parliament votes to have BJ “negotiate a better deal” even though from the EU perspective the negotiating is over. This would likely appease any MP’s opposed to a no-deal Brexit even though the inevitable result is still a no deal Brexit on Oct 31.

Juncker stands down 1 November and staunch federalist, Ursula von der Leyen is due to step in. Her dream of The United Federal States of Germania could be blown if the UK is allowed to leave, so she might well be acquiescent to BoJo's demands. Well, you never know.

 

[Vixen]

I don't know the ins and outs of either country's residency programme but it seems that in Finland you can apply for settled status until 2020 but presumably you'd have to satisfy the requirements at the point you apply.

Regarding you comments about applying for settled status in Malta, presumably the same is true for any country you're applying for residency in.



That wasn't the point, the point was that Malta has one of the most generous programmes. I think that point has been made.

Hmm. I'm not convinced.

 

[Aber]

Oh, and by telling the Welsh Assembly that they've got things wrong and that they should destroy the Newport wetlands after all
.

Says someone who lives to the East of the Brynglas tunnels

 

[Lothian]

Fact 1: We voted to leave - there was no mention of 'deal' on the ballot paper.

Yes, but it is not that simple is it? You and many others have said that it would be wrong to leave the EU while remaining a member of the customs union and single market despite the fact it would deliver the option on the paper.

Fact 2: There are two ways of leaving: with a deal or without one.

There are many many deals.

Fact 3: At the moment, only one deal is available, and the EU are insistent that it can't be changed.

yep

Fact 4: MPs won't vote for the deal - they've already voted 3 times against it - effectively five times if you count the two times a proposed vote was delayed for weeks or scrapped because the government knew it would lose.

Leave supporting MPs have voted against the deal that delivers the option on the paper. Similarly other leave voting MPs have voted against leaving with no deal. No deal is not supported by Parliament or the opinion polls.

Conclusion: We must leave without a deal. There are already some agreed mini-deals to cover things like keeping aeroplanes flying, and we can only hope that there will be more and more areas of agreement for things that benefit both sides in the period before and immediately after October 31.

Conclusion. We must remain until the leave factions can agree on a way of leaving that will pass a public referendum.

 

[ceptimus]

Yes, but it is not that simple is it?

Yes it is. The FACT is that we voted to leave - you can argue about why we voted that way and whether or not that was the correct decision, but that doesn't alter the FACT.

There are many many deals.

What I wrote is still a FACT. You can leave with with a deal or without one - and 'deal' includes any conceivably available deal. I went on to consider what deal(s) is/are available in my next fact, which you agreed with.

Leave supporting MPs have voted against the deal that delivers the option on the paper.

Yes, but again you're not contradicting my FACT. MPs have voted against the only deal presented to them three times, and have been stopped from voting a further two times - either for a long delay or indefinitely.

Conclusion. We must remain until the leave factions can agree on a way of leaving that will pass a public referendum.

You're welcome to draw your own conclusion - neither you nor I claimed that our conclusions were facts.

 

[ponderingturtle]

More likely, Parliament votes to have BJ “negotiate a better deal” even though from the EU perspective the negotiating is over. This would likely appease any MP’s opposed to a no-deal Brexit even though the inevitable result is still a no deal Brexit on Oct 31.

Well I thought this was just the temporary deal while the permanent deal is negotiated. Hence the idea of the backstop, so that if a premenant deal that resolves the irish border issue can not be reached NI is broadly in the EU to a degree. If a permenant deal was on the offer it would involve a backstop.

 

[ceptimus]

Says someone who lives to the East of the Brynglas tunnels

Do they actually need to 'destroy' the wetlands? Couldn't they dig some new tunnels or otherwise bypass the existing tunnels in some other way? [/off topic]

 

[The Don]

Do they actually need to 'destroy' the wetlands? Couldn't they dig some new tunnels or otherwise bypass the existing tunnels in some other way? [/off topic]

The exiting motorway already doesn't meet standards because it's been widened already so upgrading the exiting route wasn't an option.

Three routes were considered, red, purple and black, all of which ran to the south of Newport.

https://www.geographyinthenews.org.uk/media/2962/39-map.pdf

I'm not sure why no routes North of Newport were considered but it's a lot hillier that way and it would involve an even longer detour and thus been considerably more expensive.

 

[Nessie]

Someone is now trying to spoil relations between the UK and USA by leaking correspondence by the UK Ambassador to the US, which included comments such as;

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-darroch-is-reported-to-have-said-about-trump

"As seen from here, we really don’t believe that this administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional, less unpredictable, less faction-riven, less diplomatically clumsy and inept”

"For a man who has risen to the highest office on the planet, President Trump radiates insecurity … There is no filter [that prevents Trump making offensive comments] … We could also be at the beginning of a downward spiral, rather than just a rollercoaster; something could emerge that leads to disgrace and downfall"

 

[Vixen]

Trump is at Twitter again. On Theresa May and the above mentioned diplomat, Darroch, who wrote some horrid things about him, which was meant to be confidential but was leaked:

I have been very critical about the way the U.K. and Prime Minister Theresa May handled Brexit. What a mess she and her representatives have created. I told her how it should be done, but she decided to go another way. I do not know the Ambassador, but he is not liked or well....

Tweet #2:

...thought of within the U.S. We will no longer deal with him. The good news for the wonderful United Kingdom is that they will soon have a new Prime Minister. While I thoroughly enjoyed the magnificent State Visit last month, it was the Queen who I was most impressed with!

Let the war of words begin!

 

[lomiller]

Well I thought this was just the temporary deal while the permanent deal is negotiated. Hence the idea of the backstop, so that if a premenant deal that resolves the irish border issue can not be reached NI is broadly in the EU to a degree. If a permenant deal was on the offer it would involve a backstop.

I thought “backstop” was specific to the border at Northern Ireland and that there will be subsequent negotiations aimed at removing border checkpoints.

It’s nonsensical to expect to remove border checkpoints without trade, custom and free travel agreements in place, and the EU clearly understands this. The problem appears to be that the Brexiters do not. They seem to want it to be just like these agreements were in place but without any actual agreements. The backstop was just the EU saying "here is how we will deal with the border until you figure out exactly what it is you want"

 

[ponderingturtle]

I thought “backstop” was specific to the border at Northern Ireland and that there will be subsequent negotiations aimed at removing border checkpoints.

It’s nonsensical to expect to remove border checkpoints without trade, custom and free travel agreements in place, and the EU clearly understands this. The problem appears to be that the Brexiters do not. They seem to want it to be just like these agreements were in place but without any actual agreements. The backstop was just the EU saying "here is how we will deal with the border until you figure out exactly what it is you want"

It is because this deal is just a step toward new normalized relations and so it does not have all the details of how trade will work, the backstop is such that if negotiations break down and can not be agreed that NI remains within the EU customs union and there is then a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK. If they could negotiate a final deal before this break down it would never come into effect, but it is to make sure there is not a hard irish border as a possibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/what-is-the-brexit-backstop

Of course it seems unlikely that realistic agreements could be made by anyone from the UK at this time to prevent the backstop going into effect but for all everyone agrees they don't want a hard irish border, retaking control of the UK borders was exactly what so many people say the vote was about.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Trump is at Twitter again. On Theresa May and the above mentioned diplomat, Darroch, who wrote some horrid things about him, which was meant to be confidential but was leaked:



Tweet #2:



Let the war of words begin!

The funny thing is that when I first heard him called insecure I initially thought they were talking about his handling of classified information. Though of course Trump is insecure in almost every way imaginable.