seahawk wrote:

Many Spanish colleagues confirmed that they would gladly take a pay cut, if it means less Brits and I must say I would gladly pay a higher fee for the entrance if it means less Brits. I think many on the continent are willing to shoulder the burden just to get rid of the UK.

I have to say, that attitude of yours is part of the problem. Nobody will get anywhere with such ill feeling.

Please don't tar everybody with the same brush. We're not all as ignorant as the small group of tourists you encountered, and frankly it's embarrassing as it's also reflective of the wider misunderstandings which led to the referendum going the way they did.

As for taking pay cuts just to be rid of tourists from one nationality, you do realise that if there is a big downturn in tourists redundancy is another option businesses in the tourism sector could take? In fact, tough decisions about pay cuts and redundancies is probably something some businesses in tourist locations directly impacted by the collapse of Thomas Cook are no doubt making already or will have to make in the coming weeks/months.

par13del wrote:

Funny thing is, we finally have a plan proposed by the UK government, something which should have been presented to parliament prior to the filing of Article 50 (2016-2017 time frame) which could have formed the basis of the negotiations with the EU, unfortunately, the previous government went with blank papers.

Yep. We have Theresa May's rush to meet her self-imposed deadline of invoking Article 50 by late-March 2017 to thank for that. It's a good job nobody listened to Jeremy Corbyn when he was calling for an immediate invocation of Article 50 the day after the referendum. Whether the plans submitted are workable or not, 2 years to build upon it and come to an agreement using these as a starting point is far better than attempting to thrash things out 2 weeks before the next European Council summit.

Boeing74741R wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Many Spanish colleagues confirmed that they would gladly take a pay cut, if it means less Brits and I must say I would gladly pay a higher fee for the entrance if it means less Brits. I think many on the continent are willing to shoulder the burden just to get rid of the UK.

I have to say, that attitude of yours is part of the problem. Nobody will get anywhere with such ill feeling.

Please don't tar everybody with the same brush. We're not all as ignorant as the small group of tourists you encountered, and frankly it's embarrassing as it's also reflective of the wider misunderstandings which led to the referendum going the way they did.

As for taking pay cuts just to be rid of tourists from one nationality, you do realise that if there is a big downturn in tourists redundancy is another option businesses in the tourism sector could take? In fact, tough decisions about pay cuts and redundancies is probably something some businesses in tourist locations directly impacted by the collapse of Thomas Cook are no doubt making already or will have to make in the coming weeks/months.

The worst thing is unending uncertainty. There is no way Brexit will not have bad consequences for all involved, but as longer as it drags on the more people will want to just fet on with it and be done.

And imho the UK is making a huge mistake if they think public pressure will give them a good deal and that the EU would give in. Imho this is less likely today than at the start of the negotiations and to be honest I can not see the UK revoking either. The language used in the debate has become way too polarized for that to work out. I think it is best for all parties if the UK does the hard Brexit asap. Nobody needs the UK triggering Article 50 and revoking again with each new election.

Meanwhile BoJo's plan lands flat on the face in Brussels, with:
- the EU undiplomatically telling the UK there are many sticking points with the proposed plan which all need to be cleared within a week for it to be discussed further
- the EP telling the UK that the idea of a NI out of the CU, but basically in the SM for as long as NI wants it, will not fly.
- Mr. Barnier pointing out that there are legal issues with what BoJo proposed even which make the plan simply incompatible with Community law even.(*)
and both the French President as well as the German Chancellor refusing to discuss the plan with the PM any further, preventing BoJo to show he's selling a plan!

(*): the main problem is what would happen if NI decides it does not want to remain alligned with the SM in say 4 years time, since the EU grants NI unrestricted access based on the GFE it guarantees.

The official reply from Paris today was: 'The President has no time this week or next week to accomodate a visit by the British PM and in any case, the matters Mr. Johnson wants to discuss are fully taken care of by the EC on behalf of us… as they are for the 27 other EU memberstates'...
Soon after pretty much the same message tellingly came from Berlin too.
So far for the EU giving in when being stared down, isn't it?
They don't even want to see your face, Boris!
ROTFL


A cartoon explaining BoJo's plan:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... ober-2019/

In the meantime:

Wealthy British are stashing their money in Switzerland

While the UK's deadline for leaving the European Union is coming ever closer, Swiss banks have seen a large increase in wealthy British customers due to fears of a chaotic Brexit, Reuters reports based on insiders.

Link in Dutch

Even the rich flee good old England.

par13del wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I think many on the continent are willing to shoulder the burden just to get rid of the UK.

As with all things political, the question is whether the leadership wants to go along with the public wishes.
Funny thing is, we finally have a plan proposed by the UK government, something which should have been presented to parliament prior to the filing of Article 50 (2016-2017 time frame) which could have formed the basis of the negotiations with the EU, unfortunately, the previous government went with blank papers.

If they would have presented it before invoking article 50, it would not have changed the reaction of the EU. Fundamental problems aren't addressed. The only thing is that the UK Parliament could have decided not to go ahead with the stupid article 50 and we could have it done many moons ago, without the damage to the economy.

Klaus wrote:

The Brexit Steering Group of the European Parliament has just published its official response to the UK paper:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/p ... eland-need

First, the UK proposals on customs and on regulatory aspects explicitly provide for infrastructure, controls and checks but are unclear as to exactly where and how these would be carried out. Any form of controls and checks in and around the border would signify the end of frictionless trade and as such would harm the all-island economy as well as represent a serious risk to the peace process, and could imply a serious risk for consumers and businesses. The proposals tabled by the UK Government thus breach a range of fundamental principles and red lines passed in the resolutions of this house. At the same time, such controls would not be sufficient to guarantee the protection of EU consumers and businesses in all circumstances, thereby potentially leaving the EU with a significant hole in its Single Market.
Second, the UK proposals would operationally only be worked out in detail by the EU and the UK, or in the UK unilaterally, during the fourteen-month transition period. This does not provide the necessary certainty or fulfil the agreed principles in the Withdrawal Agreement. This would mean the European Parliament would have to give consent to the Protocol without knowing its full implications, nor having any guarantee as to its legal operation. This is unacceptable.
Third, the right of consent being offered to the Northern Irish Assembly effectively makes an agreement contingent, uncertain, provisional and unilateral decision, instead of the safety net provided for by the backstop. Furthermore, the Northern Irish Assembly has not sat for nearly three years and it is questionable whether it would be able to reconvene and take on the responsibility for an international treaty of this nature.

In summary, the BSG has grave concerns about the UK proposal, as tabled. Safeguarding peace and stability on the island of Ireland, protection of citizens and EU’s legal order has to be the main focus of any deal. The UK proposals do not match even remotely what was agreed as a sufficient compromise in the backstop.

(My emphasis)

Wow, I'm shocked.

Dutchy wrote:

If they would have presented it before invoking article 50, it would not have changed the reaction of the EU. Fundamental problems aren't addressed. The only thing is that the UK Parliament could have decided not to go ahead with the stupid article 50 and we could have it done many moons ago, without the damage to the economy.

How could they have commenced anything without article 50, could they have gone Norway basic or plus without filing?

Dutchy wrote:

In the meantime:

Wealthy British are stashing their money in Switzerland

While the UK's deadline for leaving the European Union is coming ever closer, Swiss banks have seen a large increase in wealthy British customers due to fears of a chaotic Brexit, Reuters reports based on insiders.

Link in Dutch

Even the rich flee good old England.

Indeed, one of the big problems with Brexit will be the rich able to protect themselves while the lives of the poor and middle class get much worse.

Dutchy wrote:

In the meantime:

Wealthy British are stashing their money in Switzerland

While the UK's deadline for leaving the European Union is coming ever closer, Swiss banks have seen a large increase in wealthy British customers due to fears of a chaotic Brexit, Reuters reports based on insiders.

Link in Dutch
Even the rich flee good old England.

Yeah, and the Swiss banks receive so much money that they have difficulty to place it. With all the uncertainty ahead they want to place it as safely and also liquid as possible. One such place is Danish housing bonds - because that market is so well regulated, and the Danish Krone is tied to the Euro.

Result is that now I can have the house refinanced (first 60% of its value) at fixed interest rate for 10 years at NEGATIVE interest rate near one percent. Alternatively, have it over 30 years, the interest rate becomes positive, but so small that you can hardly see it.

I don't do it. My house is fully paid, and even if I could earn a little profit on borrowing, then it would partially or fully be eaten by various administration fees. But young people, new entrants into the housing market, are jumping up and down due to happiness.

Who pays for this madness? Brexiteers do. (Well, remainers do too). Strange things happen when an otherwise great nation decides to slowly commit suicide.

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If they would have presented it before invoking article 50, it would not have changed the reaction of the EU. Fundamental problems aren't addressed. The only thing is that the UK Parliament could have decided not to go ahead with the stupid article 50 and we could have it done many moons ago, without the damage to the economy.

How could they have commenced anything without article 50, could they have gone Norway basic or plus without filing?

It's not about going, it's about planning. Having a clear plan, and one that is workable, developed with the help of EU specialists for example. Then send the article 50 letter, and the plan could be discussed with the EU. And no red lines beforehand.

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

If they would have presented it before invoking article 50, it would not have changed the reaction of the EU. Fundamental problems aren't addressed. The only thing is that the UK Parliament could have decided not to go ahead with the stupid article 50 and we could have it done many moons ago, without the damage to the economy.

How could they have commenced anything without article 50, could they have gone Norway basic or plus without filing?

It's not about going, it's about planning. Having a clear plan, and one that is workable, developed with the help of EU specialists for example. Then send the article 50 letter, and the plan could be discussed with the EU. And no red lines beforehand.

have a workable plan, be prepared and be ready to excecute, before you take irriversable steps...........

Remember that the EU civil servants do nothing but negotiate, and quite frankly, they are very good at it. Compared to that, the British civil servants are babies and are lead by nitwits. That's why we are were we are.

A harsh, but very accurate assesment of the situation.

before you take irriversable steps.

They are reversible (thanks to the EU), there's just no one in upper positions of the main UK parties with the cajones to admit the reversal is required or have the balls to stand up and call the current "it's undemocratic" rhetoric for what it is, codswallop.

Dutchy wrote:

Remember that the EU civil servants do nothing but negotiate, and quite frankly, they are very good at it. Compared to that, the British civil servants are babies and are lead by nitwits. That's why we are were we are.

A harsh, but very accurate assesment of the situation.

The problem I fail to understand is that among the EU civil servants around 1500 are brits so they have all the knowledge they need. The fact that the Brexit is just a political coup is the only explanation.

So we are heading for another extension.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will still ask for a deferment for the Brexit if he has not reached a deal before October 19, according to government documents submitted to the court in Scotland on Friday.

This is striking, because Johnson has always said that the Brexit will continue on October 31 "with or without a deal."

This is the so-called Benn law, which was pushed through last month and ensures that the Brexit must be postponed if no deal has been reached. According to the documents, Johnson has indeed promised to request a postponement by letter if there is no deal before 19 October.

Johnson presented his new proposals on Wednesday, hoping to close a new deal. However, those proposals were shot hard on Thursday by the Brexit steering committee of the European Parliament.

The proposals would "not even come close" to what is needed to reach a compromise between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

link in Dutch

So we can continue this thread, let the fun continue.

Olddog wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Remember that the EU civil servants do nothing but negotiate, and quite frankly, they are very good at it. Compared to that, the British civil servants are babies and are lead by nitwits. That's why we are were we are.

A harsh, but very accurate assesment of the situation.

The problem I fail to understand is that among the EU civil servants around 1500 are brits so they have all the knowledge they need. The fact that the Brexit is just a political coup is the only explanation.

It is a very British political coup. British EU civil servants are just that, EU civil servants, not UK ones.

Olddog wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Remember that the EU civil servants do nothing but negotiate, and quite frankly, they are very good at it. Compared to that, the British civil servants are babies and are lead by nitwits. That's why we are were we are.

A harsh, but very accurate assesment of the situation.

The problem I fail to understand is that among the EU civil servants around 1500 are brits so they have all the knowledge they need.

Yet these people are working for the EU, not for the UK, and they are invited to remain doing so also after Brexit.
The EU only recruits its staff from member states, but it's not going to fire its British civil servants after Brexit and most of them do not want to leave the EC or work for the UK government either, so their loyalty very much is and remains with the EU, even today. Wonder how long it's going to take for the tabloids to call these people 'traitors' too?

Anyway, it's not like the British political class is willing to listen to its British experts on EU matters right now, is it, so what would they come home for to do?
If you are selling unicorns like the Tories currently do, you don't want to hear biologists, vets or taxidermists telling you all those nice pink unicorns you've promissed to deliver simply don't exist…

The first step for politicians in the UK is to sober up, take a deep breath, admit the weak position they're in and ask for something deliverable in a huble way, say:
1- an extension to avoid the cliff edge
2- negotiate a soft Brexit (aka Norway +)
3- hold a referendum on that put the drama to bed once and for all.
I'm sure that many of the British EU specialist would be more than pleased to help out with all the technicalities under these conditions, but not when it is to help drive the car of the cliff like they are supposed to be doing now, hence none of them came back and so both the Brexit department as well as the department of trade is having to do with complete nitwits who don't know how to negotiate! Just remember how many deals they were supposed to have replaced by better UK only deals now? And where are they on that again?

Brexit is a lesson in self-knowlegde and clearly the UK has MASSIVELY overrated itself.

Well, there's another feather in Boris's cap. Not 72h after telling his conference of Europhobes (sorry, Tories) that he's coming out of the EU on the 31st Oct, whether or not there's a deal, he is now looking for another extension. Of course, I hope it's granted, but really, on top of everything else during his two month premiership, it's another slap in the face. Of course, it is the slap of the ice cold water of reality biting.

We don't have it officially that they will seek an extension, nor how long the EU will agree to, but it has to be seen as another setback.

As to Sabenapilot's proposals above, No3 makes eminent sense, which pretty much rules it out. No 1 and 2 pretty much go together. They're still stuck on the Irish border issue, but I think that there is potential for this to be agreed, as long as they can completely ignore the DUP.

Dutchy wrote:

So we are heading for another extension.

Not so fast

"The government is making its true position on delay known privately in Europe and this will become public soon."

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49936352

Thus more drama to come till the end of the month. Can't wait.

Here's a question I think I know the answer to but need to ask to make sure I do - can the EU just say "no more" on Oct. 31 and it's done, the UK is gone? At that point if the backstop is the most critical single issue would Ireland then be forced to establish border controls on its side of the line? That alone would take months of work right?

As an aside, I think Trump has leapt the US back in front in the race for ultimate glory but the scenario above would surely see the UK make a final dash to pip us at the finish line.

Considering all the opt outs and benefits the UK currently enjoys a soft Brexit makes no sense.

LJ wrote:

Thus more drama to come till the end of the month. Can't wait.

Probably, but in the end....

wingman wrote:

Here's a question I think I know the answer to but need to ask to make sure I do - can the EU just say "no more" on Oct. 31 and it's done, the UK is gone? At that point if the backstop is the most critical single issue would Ireland then be forced to establish border controls on its side of the line? That alone would take months of work right?

As an aside, I think Trump has leapt the US back in front in the race for ultimate glory but the scenario above would surely see the UK make a final dash to pip us at the finish line.

That's a lot of questions all rolled into a neat package.

> it is in the provocative of the EU not to grand an extension once again. For an extension being granted, there needs to be a unanimous decision taken, so effectively give Malta a veto over this. But more importantly, Hungary might be the one not playing ball to get "back" at the EU for ticking him of not playing nice to the rule of law in his country.
> if no extension is granted, it still is the question of what happens next. And that depends on how article 50 is actually explained. That can be done in two ways:
a. after two years the country in question automatically sees to be a member of the EU
b. after two years article 50 requests is automatically withdrawn
Many subscribe to option a. but I have read from scholars that actually option b. might be true. So there needs to be a court ruling on this issue, by the EU courts to explain article 50 in this respect.
> If option a. is correct, Ireland would have to put in a hard border to protect the single market and the customs union, as all member states with an outside border must do.
> Months? Well, don't know, I am sure they are preparing themselves for it. The harbour of Dublin is well prepared, so there must be some contiguous plan in place. But that is everybody's guess what it actually is and how the Irish government is going to react to it. They must have a thought out plan for such a scenario.

seahawk wrote:

Considering all the opt outs and benefits the UK currently enjoys a soft Brexit makes no sense.

Brexit makes no sense, so what is your point?

Frankly I wish this to be over and am fine with no deal, despite my company being global and having significant business in the UK.

However, seeing BoJo eating crow and having to ask for an extension will bring me joy.

I understand the feeling, but on the other hand, it isn't a small thing, Brexit and the consequences are just too great.

Dutchy wrote:

> if no extension is granted, it still is the question of what happens next. And that depends on how article 50 is actually explained. That can be done in two ways:
a. after two years the country in question automatically sees to be a member of the EU
b. after two years article 50 requests is automatically withdrawn
Many subscribe to option a. but I have read from scholars that actually option b. might be true. So there needs to be a court ruling on this issue, by the EU courts to explain article 50 in this respect.
> If option a. is correct, Ireland would have to put in a hard border to protect the single market and the customs union, as all member states with an outside border must do.

b. is simply not true. Article 50 clearly and explicitly stipulates a.

The only modification the ECJ has made is to allow for unilateral retraction of Article 50 right to the end of the now extended period, but that already had no basis in Article 50 itself and was basically a politically motivated gift to the UK.

Aesma wrote:

Frankly I wish this to be over and am fine with no deal, despite my company being global and having significant business in the UK.

Good thing about my company being global is that we just got a toll manufacturing contract for a Japanese company which used to be done at that Japanese factory own UK facilities.

Unless the situation clears, they will be closing the factory in 2-3 years time.

Klaus wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

> if no extension is granted, it still is the question of what happens next. And that depends on how article 50 is actually explained. That can be done in two ways:
a. after two years the country in question automatically sees to be a member of the EU
b. after two years article 50 requests is automatically withdrawn
Many subscribe to option a. but I have read from scholars that actually option b. might be true. So there needs to be a court ruling on this issue, by the EU courts to explain article 50 in this respect.
> If option a. is correct, Ireland would have to put in a hard border to protect the single market and the customs union, as all member states with an outside border must do.

b. is simply not true. Article 50 clearly and explicitly stipulates a.

The only modification the ECJ has made is to allow for unilateral retraction of Article 50 right to the end of the now extended period, but that already had no basis in Article 50 itself and was basically a politically motivated gift to the UK.

Not my point of view, but a scholer's view.

ltbewr wrote:

Even the rich flee good old England.

Indeed, one of the big problems with Brexit will be the rich able to protect themselves while the lives of the poor and middle class get much worse.[/quote]
I am somewhat confused by this, the UK is presently in the EU and we have seen scandals of rich folk stashing their money outside of the EU prior to Brexit, including in other countries that are also members of the EU, how is being out of the EU going to make any change to this type of behavior when they are able to get away with it now?

Klaus wrote:

The only modification the ECJ has made is to allow for unilateral retraction of Article 50 right to the end of the now extended period, but that already had no basis in Article 50 itself and was basically a politically motivated gift to the UK.

Does this mean that Article 50 is a moving target or that the ECJ not only interprets but also makes laws?

par13del wrote:

Klaus wrote:

The only modification the ECJ has made is to allow for unilateral retraction of Article 50 right to the end of the now extended period, but that already had no basis in Article 50 itself and was basically a politically motivated gift to the UK.

Does this mean that Article 50 is a moving target or that the ECJ not only interprets but also makes laws

No, in the EU legal order courts don't make laws. But they can lead the interpretation of standing laws if there is any leeway to do so until the actual laws are changed (for instance by closing any residual leeway for interpretation).

In this case I see lots of grounds in that court decision for a challenge, but for political reasons none of the member countries and so far no other citizen or entity has undertaken such a challenge, so that golden bridge for a revocation of Article 50 still remains open, at least for now...

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

A hard Brexit would mean the following:
• Brexit would dominate UK politics and news even more intensely from day 1.
• All the exact same issues with the EU would still be on the table, completely unchanged, only with a lot less trust to be had than even now (imagine that!).
• The UK would just have even less leverage, but a whole lot more desperation to compromise for a deal with the EU.
• It would take years of further intensified negotiations to get even close to a new relationship treaty.
• At the same time the UK would be rocked by the economic and political repercussions of that hard Brexit.
• Scotland would push full-on for secession.
• Northern Ireland would most likely see a Border Poll for re-unification with the RoI.
• The irish re-unification would remove the irish border issue, but together with the loss of Scotland the weight of England+Wales would be further reduced, diminishing its leverage even further.
• You can be sure that there would be political recriminations for the fallout, including even more toxic debates dominating the public and personal lives.

The only way to "be done with Brexit" and to shove it out of the news would be to hold a second referendum, the voters giving a majority to Revoke and the UK remaining in the UK (to the sound of 27 other countries collectively banging their heads on the table).

The only way to "be done with Brexit" and to shove it out of the news would be to hold a second referendum, the voters giving a majority to Revoke and the UK remaining in the UK (to the sound of 27 other countries collectively banging their heads on the table).

A referendum has little standing as a mandate, it's an advisory tool. A second referrendum will hold no more weight than the first.
The electorate advised it was split on the issue, with the slightest of preferences to leave. The whole referendum is considered not just the one part of it. It is not first past the post, it is not majority wins, it is not blindly followed, it is not binding in any shape or form.

Any one claiming 'leave won', 'leave means leave', 'the will of the people' or the 'majority voted to leave' is talking out of their rear end, because that's simply not what a referrendum stands for in the UK.

It's then up to Parliament to make the decision, the advice from the referendum is considered alongside all the other factors, including their primary duty, the national interests. It does not override them.

Parliament cannot find a consensus on which option is in the national interest, other than that 'no-deal' in a few weeks is utterly stupid and it's Parliament's decsion to make, rather than being forced by a minority/by default.
They'll reach a decision eventually. They've given leaving a pretty dam good go by triggering the process. It's clearly not possible to leave as claimed, it's clearly not in the national interest to leave with no deal, it's clearly pointless making a deal, the only sensible option, as it was from day sodding one, is to remain an EU member.

Imho members of the house need drop their self serving convictions, #RevokeA50 amd get back to sorting out the sodding domestic mess they keep blaming the EU for.

A Parliamentary vote in the House of Commons which reaches a decison, is the voice of the people. It is our demcracy, thus the will of the people in action and it is only way #brexit will be resolved.

Yes, but I guess that an actual second referendum could really put a lid on that toxic mess the way a parliamentary vote might not be able to, even though it would of course be decise functionally.

I was specifically speaking to the point of "being done with Brexit" and that a crash-out would be almost the opposite of that, and a second referendum should be able to deliver as much of a termination to the whole mess as is even possible, while a parliamentary decision could still leave doubts about how much that would really be backed by the people (even though it would still be a rescue in a self-made storm).

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

The problem with this is following the same logic, the exact opposite conclution can be reached: revoke article 50 and stay in the EU. The consequences are too much to just to it.

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

So you rather want a continuation of the last three years for multiple times that into the future, just this time combined with real consequences...?

Klaus wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

So you rather want a continuation of the last three years for multiple times that into the future, just this time combined with real consequences...?

I can’t talk for Arion640 but for me just want an end to the saga, if Parliament do not want to leave without a deal then legislate to revoke before the 31st if not just let the process as defined in A50 and we are done. One way or another it has to finish on the 31st October

I understand the desire to finish this 'one way or the other', yet it's yet another disillusion to think things will return to normal after a 'no deal' Brexit.

Contrary to what some now claim, 'no deal' is not workable for the UK in the long run, so the UK will have to come to an agreement with the EU on the same things that are now holding up a deal, yet it will have even less leverage than today... on top of that it will be even harder for some in the UK to agree to give up part of what was gained under a temporarily 'no deal' Brexit, meaning that accepting any post-Brexit deal with the EU will be an even more lengthy, painful and to some humiliating process, because one thing should be clear by now: the idea the UK will be offered a simple, clean and wide-ranging FTA with no strings attached is NOT going to happen: the bill, citizen rights and the NI issue is ALWAYS going to come back up as are things like European collaboration and integration. If the EU would indeed have been willing to compromise on its position, it would have done so long ago when TM was fighting for her survival, or more recently when being stared down by BoJo who said the EU would think 'My God, those Brits are actually going to leave' if he came to the table... instead the EU gave him an almost insulting ultimatum of 1 week to ditch his latest offer for something far better AND refuses to talk over weekend even!

BoJo's "Get it done" is as meaningless as TM's "leave means leave": things will just go on and on and on if all those self-illusions of Britain's place in the world remain unchanged...

Whether Brexit will have happened by then or not, but by 2022 politicians in the UK will still be fighting each other over whether they can accept the EU's latest proposals sent in for ratification, the impact of a refusal to do so on the British economy and the loss of self-control because of it: whether it's as a member and rule maker like in the past, or as a third country and thus a rule-taker in the future: nothing really changes, believe me... just look at the Swiss, who's parliament is completely sucked up with rubber stamping work sent to them by Brussels and Strasbourg.

Brexit can't change the simple fact the UK is just a tiny neighbor of the biggest and most integrated trading block in the world, and it will always have to deal with it from a position of numerical, economical and political weakness.

sabenapilot wrote:

I understand the desire to finish this 'one way or the other', yet it's yet another disillusion to think things will return to normal after a 'no deal' Brexit.

Contrary to what some now claim, 'no deal' is not workable for the UK in the long run, so the UK will have to come to an agreement with the EU on the same things that are now holding up a deal, yet it will have even less leverage than today... on top of that it will be even harder for some in the UK to agree to give up part of what was gained under a temporarily 'no deal' Brexit, meaning that accepting any post-Brexit deal with the EU will be an even more lengthy, painful and to some humiliating process, because one thing should be clear by now: the idea the UK will be offered a simple, clean and wide-ranging FTA with no strings attached is NOT going to happen: the bill, citizen rights and the NI issue is ALWAYS going to come back up as are things like European collaboration and integration. If the EU would indeed have been willing to compromise on its position, it would have done so long ago when TM was fighting for her survival, or more recently when being stared down by BoJo who said the EU would think 'My God, those Brits are actually going to leave' if he came to the table... instead the EU gave him an almost insulting ultimatum of 1 week to ditch his latest offer for something far better AND refuses to talk over weekend even!

BoJo's "Get it done" is as meaningless as TM's "leave means leave": things will just go on and on and on if all those self-illusions of Britain's place in the world remain unchanged...

Whether Brexit will have happened by then or not, but by 2022 politicians in the UK will still be fighting each other over whether they can accept the EU's latest proposals sent in for ratification, the impact of a refusal to do so on the British economy and the loss of self-control because of it: whether it's as a member and rule maker like in the past, or as a third country and thus a rule-taker in the future: nothing really changes, believe me... just look at the Swiss, who's parliament is completely sucked up with rubber stamping work sent to them by Brussels and Strasbourg.

Brexit can't change the simple fact the UK is just a tiny neighbor of the biggest and most integrated trading block in the world, and it will always have to deal with it from a position of numerical, economical and political weakness.

Well no actually it means negotiators from a position of not have to deal with a tougher parliament taking the government to court there is no longer a pressure of a time frame, if they come to a deal post Brexit bonus if not well so be it

You cant reach an acceptable deal for both camps.

The UK wants to be politically outside the EU while keeping financial access unfettered. The SM and WTO rules forbid that.

If the UK really wanted a no deal and bear its costs, Brexit would have happened already.

Olddog wrote:

You cant reach an acceptable deal for both camps.

The UK wants to be politically outside the EU while keeping financial access unfettered. The SM and WTO rules forbid that.

If the UK really wanted a no deal and bear its costs, Brexit would have happened already.

No that’s not true, trying to keep the Irish border open in an acceptable way for both the UK/ EU is the sticking point. If it wasn’t for the the Irish question we would have been long gone.

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

So your statement was politically motivated to have a hard Brexit. So it wasn't entirely honest.

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

You cant reach an acceptable deal for both camps.

The UK wants to be politically outside the EU while keeping financial access unfettered. The SM and WTO rules forbid that.

If the UK really wanted a no deal and bear its costs, Brexit would have happened already.

No that’s not true, trying to keep the Irish border open in an acceptable way for both the UK/ EU is the sticking point. If it wasn’t for the the Irish question we would have been long gone.

Not really, if Brexit would have happened, it would have been in the twilight zone and all the points of the unicorns of having access to the single market but not under the jurisdiction of the EU etc. would have come up again.

That is the biggest disconnect for the hardcore Brexiteers, they seem to think that somehow the UK will be moved to the coast of America. The UK is and will remain physically close to the EU. So it is in the UK's best interest to stay politically close to the EU. It is in the UK's best interest to have stability in Northern Ireland. It is in the UK's best interest to have a deal with the EU.

A hard Brexit will just be a stepping stone in the process, it will just be a more painful way to get to the end result. It is the masochistic way. It is the extremist way.

A101 wrote:

Well no actually it means negotiators from a position of not have to deal with a tougher parliament taking the government to court there is no longer a pressure of a time frame, if they come to a deal post Brexit bonus if not well so be it

A few comments:

1: it's not Parliament taking Government to court, it's ordinary citizens who's rights to do so will still be present after Brexit, I suppose?

2: the time pressure to come to a deal quickly after any no deal Brexit will no longer be on the legal front, but the economical front: British manufacturing is so interwoven with that of it's neighbour the EU that it somehow has to keep a low friction access to it... a hard brexit will keep British manufacturing strangled, a situation that can not go on for many months: global businesses will have to adjust and start to relocalize their production from Britain: they can probably deal with modest import taxes for their final products to the UK (remember, its going to be for all, so no competitive problem at all… British consumers will just pay more), but they can't cope with all the administration and duties on a production process which sees the half-finished sub-products sent back-and-forth from the UK to the EU a couple of times during final assembly...

3: are you saying the UK government would sign up to a post-Brexit deal which is worse than a pre-Brexit deal now proposed because it would have the benefit of not having to clear parliament?
If you are, then you are fully in line with the strategic assessment from the EU's negotiating team from over a year ago already which predicted that in case of a no deal departure, the UK will come back to ask for a quick and temporary deal with the EU to pretty much restore all lost links within 3 to 6 months of its departure on pretty much any terms the EU dictates then to resemble the proposed transitional period it would have missed out on and will ultimately agree to a deal which will contain most of the elements now on the table…
Their negotiating proposal to the new EC was to refuse any immediate talks as not being urgent and to drag them out on all issues but medicine and food, all in order to send a clear signal to others the UK is a third country by then, just like any other country and that no fast lanes or special relationships exist for former members... you can already see this strategy being adapted today, as the EC has refused to have talks with BoJo's envoy over the weekend over his proposed deal, on the basis it's not urgent as there is a deal agreed already and the EU is ready for a no deal too.
Yep, it's sure going to be a cold winter in case of a hard Brexit in England, Wales, Scotland, NI and Gibraltar, where they are stocking up food like crazy and are desperate for a quick solution to get rid of all of their waste as it looks like Spain has decided to let 'the rock' turn itself into one gigantic dump as from November!
Let's face it: Britain isn't prepared for a no deal... some fatcat politicians certainly are, but the British economy isn't

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Olddog wrote:

You cant reach an acceptable deal for both camps.

The UK wants to be politically outside the EU while keeping financial access unfettered. The SM and WTO rules forbid that.

If the UK really wanted a no deal and bear its costs, Brexit would have happened already.

No that’s not true, trying to keep the Irish border open in an acceptable way for both the UK/ EU is the sticking point. If it wasn’t for the the Irish question we would have been long gone.

Not really, if Brexit would have happened, it would have been in the twilight zone and all the points of the unicorns of having access to the single market but not under the jurisdiction of the EU etc. would have come up again.

That is the biggest disconnect for the hardcore Brexiteers, they seem to think that somehow the UK will be moved to the coast of America. The UK is and will remain physically close to the EU. So it is in the UK's best interest to stay politically close to the EU. It is in the UK's best interest to have stability in Northern Ireland. It is in the UK's best interest to have a deal with the EU.

A hard Brexit will just be a stepping stone in the process, it will just be a more painful way to get to the end result. It is the masochistic way. It is the extremist way.

I think we have been conversing long enough to know we will agree to disagree with what you just wrote

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

Yep.

Arion640 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

Lets brexit on the 31st of October and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously p*ssed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Let's revoke Article 50 immediately and bring an end to this farce. Everyone is seriously pissed off now. All politicians on all sides are just a bunch of kids.

Nope.

Aaaand... You see absolutely no irony in your response...?!