Cont: Brexit: Now What? Magic 8 Ball's up

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Let's see if we can find where we agree rather than disagee. Which if the following do you agree with.

(1)The original agreement did not contain any provision as to what would happen with the Irish border should a new agreement be reached in the transition period.
(2) The EU suggested a backstop
(3) The UK rejected that backstop and suggested their own
(4) The EU agreed to the inclusion of the UK version
(5) May endorsed the agreement and presented the version with the UK backstop to parliament.

(1) is incorrect. There was no 'agreement' on anything that didn't include a backstop because a solution to the Irish border issue was a necessary key part of any agreement from the very beginning.

 

[a_unique_person]

(1) is incorrect. There was no 'agreement' on anything that didn't include a backstop because a solution to the Irish border issue was a necessary key part of any agreement from the very beginning.

Statement of terms? Agreed status of the existing situation?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Anybody can ring fence themselves with determination.

This horrible idea that poor people are poor because they didn't invest wisely needs to be stamped on immediately.

You can't invest money you don't have. And thanks to austerity and ******** like Brexit the poor are worse off than ever.

It should also be noted that thanks to the magic of maths those with significant assets who invest necessarily grow their wealth at a faster rate in absolute terms than those with little invested. So wealth inequalities tend to be exacerbated over time.

Then fees and the like mean its often not worth investing small amounts.

It should also be noted that the first rule of any risky investing is don't invest what you can't afford to lose which for a hell of a lot of people is 'anything at all'

 

[a_unique_person]

The Supreme Court session is underway. Despite lodging an appeal against the Scottish decision, Johnson has not submitted a written statement.

Is he going to tell them a humorous anecdote?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Why bother? Yes, Mrs May produced a document which was discussed with the Commission and the Commission made alterations. Irrelevant - the document was rejected three times by Parliament and THAT is the defining act. There is no agreement upon ANY part of the document, let alone the backstop. Whatever happened and whatever was said is history, not law and certainly not a negotiating position.

No there is an agreement between the UK Government and the EU. The agreement was not approved by Parliament and so has not been enacted in law. But then leaving with no deal has also been rejected by parliament and BoJo is trying to find a way around that so yet again it seems Brexiteers only value parliament and democracy when they agree with it.

The position at the moment is a stalemate and the default outcome at the moment is the UK leaving the EU with no deal.

Which has been rejected multiple times by Parliament so the actual default outcome is to ask for another extension. And you would of course insist Bojo does this?

The UK has no responsibility to the EU to institute a hard border and, indeed, has a responsibility NOT to do so (or, at least, not to erect a policed border) as a result of the Good Friday Agreement. The EU is not a signatory to the GFA, although the RoI IS a signatory.

That's what I see and it is now, and has been since the beginning of negotiations, the base position.

Bollocks again. WTO rules require a customs border. EU rules require customs border and checks and inspections and UK rules will require exactly the same for imports too unless they are going to allow a free for all? A border is the default position for any 2 countries not in a customs union. It's not some peculiar anomaly. It's how the world works. Reality trumps Brexit fantasy every time.

 

[McHrozni]

Is he going to tell them a humorous anecdote?

Right now I'm not sure it matters. Brexit delay beg has been agreed to, even if he's forced to reopen Parliament ... what changes exactly? Parliament would be able to settle a number of small issues I guess, but the big one - Brexit - has no agenda for the time being.

It only matters if BJ can be prosecuted for misconduct in public office. I'm not sure that'll be the case.

McHrozni

 

[LondonJohn]

Except of course in the promotional material for the brexit vote then it was assured those would remain.

Uhhh.... WAS IT?

Because as I remember it, rather a key element of the Leave campaign was the promise that by leaving the EU, we'd be able to police our own borders, allow precisely who we wanted from non-UK countries to live and work here, and put a stop to uncontrolled immigration from other EU member states.

None of that could or would be stopped if the UK remained part of the single market post any Brexit.


(And please note again that I don't subscribe to the Brexit position, either before or since the referendum - I think we are far, far better off in a net position if we remain within the EU. However I don't think it advances the debate very far if we distort what the Leave position actually was - and what the Leave voters clearly believed they were voting for.....)

 

[Worm]

It should also be noted that the first rule of any risky investing is don't invest what you can't afford to lose which for a hell of a lot of people is 'anything at all'

This. 100 times this.

Consider any capital you put into investment as a loss - gone, wiped out, then anything you make from it is a bonus.

There are huge numbers of people who simply don't have that luxury. They don't have 'extra' money. They can't afford what they already need, far less what they would like to have.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Statement of terms? Agreed status of the existing situation?

We are talking about David 'I forgot my homework' Davis here? Mumbled imaginings, hastily scribbled fantasising, or non-existent talking points would maybe be a better description.

 

[LondonJohn]

Utter garbage. Brexiteer logic at its worst.

A solution to the Irish border issue has been needed since Day 1. That Theresa May forgot to include it in her homework is only evidence that the Tories were woefully unprepared and that no Brexiteer has any ******* clue about how the world actually functions.

The best and brightest Brexiteers haven't a clue. So what that says about the other 17.499 million is fairly obvious. Wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way round on the toilet.

Ahh, just the sort of cool, non-confrontational debate which has so endeared supporters of Remain to supporters of Leave (who, I might suggest, simply feel increasingly entrenched in their positions when they are patronised in this sort of aggressive manner).

And I'm pro-Remain.

It's just that I think a) it's important to represent positions and decisions correctly, and b) the only way ultimately to present a reasonable case for Remain (whether by a second referendum or other means) is in a non-inflammatory way which sticks to logic and reason. Call me crazy!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Is he going to tell them a humorous anecdote?

No, he doesn't turn up to talk to people who don't agree with him.

 

[uke2se]

Uhhh.... WAS IT?

Because as I remember it, rather a key element of the Leave campaign was the promise that by leaving the EU, we'd be able to police our own borders, allow precisely who we wanted from non-UK countries to live and work here, and put a stop to uncontrolled immigration from other EU member states.

None of that could or would be stopped if the UK remained part of the single market post any Brexit.

And yet Leavers said that the UK would retain access to the single market. The confusion is due to Brexiteers lying.

(And please note again that I don't subscribe to the Brexit position, either before or since the referendum - I think we are far, far better off in a net position if we remain within the EU. However I don't think it advances the debate very far if we distort what the Leave position actually was - and what the Leave voters clearly believed they were voting for.....)

I agree. The problem is that what the Leave voters 'clearly' believed differs from one Leaver to the next. There was no clarity, and this was by design from the Leave campaign.

 

[LondonJohn]

No it really doesn't. The EU document merely highlighted and spelled out the issue - which everyone was already well aware of. The idea that the EU suddenly invented it or came up with a massive gotcha in the shape of the backstop is nonsense.

That may or may not be factually true. But it's not what that article actually implies. Which is what was at issue here.

 

[uke2se]

Ahh, just the sort of cool, non-confrontational debate which has so endeared supporters of Remain to supporters of Leave (who, I might suggest, simply feel increasingly entrenched in their positions when they are patronised in this sort of aggressive manner).

And I'm pro-Remain.

It's just that I think a) it's important to represent positions and decisions correctly, and b) the only way ultimately to present a reasonable case for Remain (whether by a second referendum or other means) is in a non-inflammatory way which sticks to logic and reason. Call me crazy!

You're crazy.

Presenting a reasonable case for Remain has been done over and over again, with and without patronizing language. It doesn't bite.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ahh, just the sort of cool, non-confrontational debate which has so endeared supporters of Remain to supporters of Leave (who, I might suggest, simply feel increasingly entrenched in their positions when they are patronised in this sort of aggressive manner).

And I'm pro-Remain.

It's just that I think a) it's important to represent positions and decisions correctly, and b) the only way ultimately to present a reasonable case for Remain (whether by a second referendum or other means) is in a non-inflammatory way which sticks to logic and reason. Call me crazy!

You can't use logic and reason on people who don't care what logic and reason say and simply lie. I'm not interested in cool non-confrontational debate with liars who simply lie again and again and don't listen.

Feel free to do that if you wish to waste your time but the time for reasoning with people is far gone when the PM is prepared to break the law and millions of people will defend him because he's going to give them what they want (they think)

Taking the high ground with people who have no concern for right or wrong or true or false simply cedes the whole game to them.

So feel free to take your smug sense of superiority and see if you can swap it for insulin or food on Nov 1st.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And yet Leavers said that the UK would retain access to the single market. The confusion is due to Brexiteers lying.

In fairness access is not the same as being in it. And this point was always carefully done in order to allow denial of lying later. Everyone has access to every market - there might be crippling tariffs which make it uneconomical or non-tariff barriers which make it exceedingly difficult to achieve. But you still have 'acces;

I agree. The problem is that what the Leave voters 'clearly' believed differs from one Leaver to the next. There was no clarity, and this was by design from the Leave campaign.

And in many cases they lie about what they believed or wanted because they didn't want to come out and say 'i want rid of darkies' for example.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That may or may not be factually true. But it's not what that article actually implies. Which is what was at issue here.

It's precisely what the article says actually. Perhaps you could quote the part that you think says otherwise?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This site breaks down what was and was not said pre-Referendum re the single market and customs union. It's more complicated than this, but the tl/dr version is "everybody said that we would leave the single market".

 

[Mojo]

Exactly !

Even if the EU were to drop trou (so to speak) and give the UK the "All the benefits of EU membership and none of the responsibilities" unicorn promised by the leave campaign, I don't think that Brexiteers could achieve consensus over those terms.

For every Brexiteer who is keen to have financial passporting there's likely another who wants to kick the financial services industry firmly in the shorts and so doesn't want it. For every employer who wants easy access to highly skilled EU workers, there's someone else who wants to keep all foreigners out.

Given that only 52% 37% of people voted to Leave, it doesn't take many dissenters for any benefit or responsibility to fail to have majority support.

FTFY

 

[BobTheCoward]

The article , if my skim reading is correct says the EU suggested a backstop with NI effectually remaining in the EU. The UK rejected that and amended the text so that the whole of the UK effectively remained in the EU. It was the UK proposal which made its way into the agreed paper.

But the idea of a backstop was not the UK's idea. I think that was the poster's point.