Britain - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Ross
- 13,374 comments
- 619,089 views
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Feel free to point out what is incorrect about my statement...
The fact is that the Withdrawal Agreement as negotiated between the EU and Theresa May's government (which has now completely collapsed) has been repeatedly rejected - it is a total failure. The EU will now have to deal with a much more hardline UK Prime Minister and the chances of the current Withdrawal Agreement ever being accepted is now nil - it's dead. The EU insists that the UK must agree withdrawal terms before leaving, yet at the same time it is not willing to change the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement one iota despite the fact that it is not even close to being acceptable (predominately because of the Irish Backstop). While that might make reversing Brexit a bit more likely, it also makes leaving without any deal considerably more likely as well.
The UK and the EU have both repeatedly asserted their desire for the UK to leave the EU with a deal - but if the current deal is not acceptable, then it logically follows that the deal must be changed for it to be acceptable - so why will the EU not even consider changing it?!
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
The blame must lie with those who thought it would be a good idea to put as options in the ballots "leave" or "stay", without actually thinking, debating and informing the people about plans on how to do it.
The voters should have options for how to leave IMO - agreement proposals.
The EU is playing the game the UK started. No wonder is messy.
Nothing is incorrect, it’s your long standing opinion.
I think it’s pretty silly to lay blame to the one group of people who where clear, open and honest from day one.
It was our government who enacted Art.50 without any planning. It was our government who’d never even considered Northern Ireland in these talks and it was our government who ignorantly assumed the EU would willingly make its self weaker politically (at a point in time when the EU is under considerable political strain), simply because we idiotically demanded they do so.
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
As has been discussed previously, the question of whether to leave or remain inside the EU necessarily had to be a binary choice - it is not the fault of those who voted leave or even those who campaigned to leave that the process of leaving has been such a shambles. The fault for that lies with the way the process of leaving has been arranged and executed by those charged with carrying it out. That public expectations were arguably unrealistic doesn't change the fact that the EU chose to play hardball when it could have been more reasonable. The result is that they came up with a deal that the UK Parliament could not accept - indeed, the EU's strategic aim of creating a customs border between NI and the rest of the UK has been unanimously rejected by the UK Parliament - and it is precisely that aim that remains the single biggest reason for the failure of Brexit.
Well, to be fair, if you read my post again you will hopefully notice that I am not solely blaming the EU, but pointing out that they are also to blame for the failure (thus far) of Brexit - despite the fact that they continually try to portray it as entirely the fault of the UK for not being clear enough about what it is we want. Ironically, the UK has been clear enough about what it would like to happen but has been continually rebuffed on key points. My preferred option is for the UK and the EU to reset negotiations and try again to allow the UK to leave with a negotiated deal - but that has been consistently ruled out by the EU. If that remains to be the case (and I sincerely hope it doesn't), then leaving without a deal is the only way the UK can leave the EU.
Because someone has to remind our government that Unicorns aren’t real...
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
I'm not a fan of the term 'unicorns' - it's a deliberately disparaging term for something that doesn't exist, but it is not an analogy or phrase that really stands up to much scrutiny.
The simple fact is that there must be a solution to the Irish border issue that pretty much does what Brexiteers have been calling for - I don't dispute the fact that it is not currently feasible, but it is possible... and the reality on the ground (Northern Ireland soon being out of the EU and Ireland still being in the EU; but no hard border infrastructure is acceptable) dictates that a new solution to customs and excise regulation on the island of Ireland is now essential.
The EU's proposed solution is, frankly, brain-dead. The UK's proposed solution is not workable yet - but it will be if the UK and Ireland are given enough time and political support to make it work. The fact remains, however, that if the UK is to leave the EU, then the UK, Ireland and the EU have no choice but to make it work.
- 30,003
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
Ireland "rejoining" the United Kingdom?
Even though it is a facetious remark, there will be some Brexiteers who will say that that is what will fix the problem and therefore it is the correct course of action. But we all know that it is an impossible and ridiculous thing.
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
A more likely outcome (albeit still a remote possibility) would be for the EU to sanction Ireland for failing to enforce the border with a non-EU state and effectively suspend Ireland from the single market until such a time as the border was secured.
This is called 'the EU throwing Ireland under a bus' scenario, and it is very unlikely to happen - but, in the absence of the option of installing a hard border between Ireland and NI, the Irish (and UK/NI) governments will have no choice but to invent a unicorn and figure out how to enforce customs and excise checks without a hard border - which is what hard Brexiteers have said should happen from day one.
- 30,003
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
The Northern Irish executive is in enough of a mess as it is, without this being given for them to "manage".
Today is 2 years, 5 months and 29 days since the Assembly for Northern Ireland was suspended, frozen, on hold or however you want to describe it.
Today is 2 years, 5 months and 29 days since the Assembly for Northern Ireland was suspended, frozen, on hold or however you want to describe it.
- 31,717
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
I can still see (if Brexit does happen) Great Britain fall apart with Scotland and Wales voting for independence and their tickets back into the EU.
Also,
How is the situation in Northern Ireland? Are they going back to U2 protest songs?
Also,
How is the situation in Northern Ireland? Are they going back to U2 protest songs?
- 30,003
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
As much as I want that to be true, in my heart of hearts I have to say that we are not quite there yet. Certainly, the past three years have been quite galvanising; far more people are now identifying themselves as "indy curious", being open to the possibility of independence, than ever before but if it came to a vote I don't think it would pass. There are far too many retired Tories in Wales for that to happen. Baby boomers, amirite?
We're about twenty years behind Scotland in terms of the independence-devolution timescale. But it's changing.
Last edited:
It's a Unicorn because we're supposed to be taking back control, in control of our own destiny and use Brexit to make Britain stronger and better. That reality isn't possible, it doesn't exist.
The issue with Ireland isn't on the EU, that is on our own government literally rushing into Brexit with ZERO planning ZERO thought and just hoping and assuming it would work its self out. Leaving the EU is possible and I agree, it should be possible. However, simply rushing into something with out a plan, strategy is idiotic and assuming the other side of the table would simply bend over backwards to make our insane demands a reality is foolish.
We are the ones who put us on an unworkable time table, not the EU. If we had a workable plan that needed time, we could have delayed enacting Art.50. But we didn't.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
I understand that. But if leaving is the priority and leaving without an agreement is an option, why put blame on the EU, who didn't want any of this from the get go? Of course no one wants a no-deal, especially the UK, but that is possible and was very much included in the "leave" option of the ballots.
UK politicians decided it would be a good idea to act first and think later. IMO the blame is 100% theirs.
I also think Ireland and UK's Northern Ireland and Scotland were thrown under the bus by the politicians in charge at the time.
And I have no idea how things can improve with Boris now as PM.
Last edited:
- 31,717
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Ironically, Brexit as envisaged by the EU is even more likely to precipitate Scottish (or Welsh) independence - allowing Northern Ireland to effectively remain inside the EU while the rest of the UK leaves sets a legal precedent that different parts of the same sovereign state can have different legal and trading status with the EU. If Northern Ireland can stay in the Single Market (even temporarily), then why not Scotland or Wales?
I disagree for several reasons, even though it might appear that way.
The EU would not begin negotiations on Brexit until after Article 50 was triggered, and, as is painfully obvious, no amount of 'planning' prior to that would have made much difference when the EU can (and have) simply dismiss any suggestions that they didn't like.
The UK could have delayed triggering Article 50, but I reckon it wouldn't have made much difference. Ironically, only after triggering Article 50 was is even possible for the EU to start playing its hand - thus there was nothing to prevent the kind of wildly optimistic speculation and wish-making that preceded it - the UK needed to trigger Article 50 in order to establish what was even up for negotiation, and as such the Article 50 process itself was (supposed to be) the time when the UK decided on which terms it would be able to leave.
Delaying triggering Article 50 would have gotten us nowhere - though, ironically, by doing so the UK started the process of a much-needed reality check. At least we now know what a negotiated exit from the EU involves.
Last edited:
The thing is there was never much of a deal to be struck anyway. EU is a rules based organisation - and we are part of the reason it is structured so rigidly. We love rules. So do the Germans. And guess what - the EU we helped build has relatively little wiggle room.
Sorry, I'm but I thought we where talking about a solution for the NI problem (which isn't mentioned anywhere in that article)?
Why couldn't have that been planned out prior to then dealing with the EU? From memory we're still dealing with the problem being solved via 'technical means' yet to be developed?
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Because it would have made no difference. The point is that the EU would not even discuss any issues prior to triggering Article 50, so there was no way of knowing where the EU officially stands on any particular issue prior to negotiations - thus, it is pretty hard to make any solid plans (intended to keep the other side happy) when the other side won't even tell you what their problem is.
It is not that both sides didn't foresee that there would be issues to address - but it was the case that the UK could not begin to make any meaningful preparations for the post-Brexit Irish border situation prior to knowing the EU's formal position on the matter, which the EU would not discuss until after Article 50 was triggered.
- 2,216
- Isle of Wight, UK
I have now, amongst my friends, correctly predicted the following over the last few years;
Trump's Presidency
Brexit
Boris Johnson becoming PM
I think I'll do everyone a favour and just keep my mouth shut the next time I reckon I know how something's gonna go.
Trump's Presidency
Brexit
Boris Johnson becoming PM
I think I'll do everyone a favour and just keep my mouth shut the next time I reckon I know how something's gonna go.
I disagree with this pretty fundamentally. Ireland wasn't ever discussed in any meaningful way prior to triggering Art.50 and zero planning or even forethought was placed on our plans for what we where doing.
Why couldn't the Government have come to some sort of solution, voted on it and agreed to it prior to triggering Art.50?
Why couldn't we have gone into these negotiations with parliament united with actual goals, rather than the utterly meaningless Brexit means Brexit bollocks?
If we'd done those things, the bare minimum, at least we'd have a starting point.
When negotiating, say your salary, you don't go into the meeting the figure of £0. Wait for them to come up with something and then argue constantly because, you've actually no idea how much you want to be/can be paid.
We went in with nothing and came away with nothing we could agree on. The EU (when negotiations started) made they're intentions and position clear and never moved. Our negotiators tried instead to wiggle around the EU who where static and the the Government who couldn't agree on what it is they wanted.
How could it have gone any other way we we did ZERO to plan for it?
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
We did have a pretty simple starting point - we're leaving the EU. But the fact is that this was far as the EU would allow discussions to go prior to triggering Article 50 anyway. Everything else was just waffle as far as they were concerned.
Well, quite... but that is not a negotiation.
Thus the point stands - what difference would it have made if we had been any clearer about what we wanted? And how can one be expected to make reasonable provisions for anything when one's plans (such as they are) can simply be dismissed wholesale by the other side?
It is simply not the case that the UK had 'no' ideas or plans for what we wanted... it is much more honest and realistic to say that the UK had a set of desirable outcomes that, for one reason or another, have mostly been rejected, and has thus paved the way for an unacceptable Withdrawal Agreement to be offered to Parliament.
The point is, however, that no amount of pre-planning would have changed the fact that the EU have refused to budge on the key sticking points, and while that remains the case it is becoming more and more likely that the UK will end up leaving without a deal.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Johnson's journalistic skills at the fore as he delivers a speech that promises all things to all people, presumably within the confines of the money we have. Great speech, largely unbelievable.
Interesting that his girlfriend wasn't allowed to walk to the door of Number 10 with him, but then he is still married.
Interesting that his girlfriend wasn't allowed to walk to the door of Number 10 with him, but then he is still married.
Because we couldn't agree on what we wanted...
Ok then, we honestly had a set of outcomes we wanted and rejected. Grand.
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The UK Government made it quite clear what the UK's desired outcomes were - to be out of the EU but maintain close trading relations that were as close to current arrangements as is possible as a non-EU member. But the process of exiting the EU has made it extremely difficult to actually negotiate anything. Firstly - the EU would not begin to 'negotiate' the Withdrawal Agreement until after Article 50 was triggered. This set a strict time limit on things and made it virtually impossible to plan ahead. Secondly, the Withdrawal Agreement does not consider the future trading relationship with the exiting member - this can only be done once a member state has formally left. But - the Withdrawal Agreement is a legally binding treaty, whereas the 'Political Declaration' is not (and merely sets out the desired outcomes for both parties and makes informal (i.e. non-binding) commitments to address how these outcomes might be obtained). Obviously, the Withdrawal Agreement is a far more important document, and also enshrines in international law what the legal default is should future negotiations (e.g. trade talks) fail.
Therein lies the key problem - the UK is expected to legally commit to cutting Northern Ireland adrift from our own legal orbit and internal single market and customs union before trade talks with the EU are even allowed to begin. There is nothing that the UK can possibly have done to avoid this (other than to never have stated a desire to leave the EU, that is) - it is a fundamental flaw of the entire Article 50 process and it is no surprise that it has failed. There remains a (slim) possibility that the EU might beef up the Political Declaration to contain legally binding guarantees on dropping their jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, and/or legally committing to a comprehensive free trade deal with the post-Brexit UK, but even then it will still probably not be enough to convince enough UK MPs that the 'Backstop' is safe, and/or that the EU can be trusted to negotiate in good faith (since it has nothing to gain from doing so once the UK has legally committed to the backstop).
I meant rejected by the EU...
-
edit: You seem to be suggesting that the UK ought to have had a set of goals/demands that it had already agreed on in Parliament prior to triggering Article 50, as if that would have made the Article 50 process different in some way. It wouldn't have. The UK has repeatedly stated that we would like a free trade deal with zero tariffs etc., but the EU will not allow talks on trade to even start yet, let alone agree to accommodate our every wish... the reality is very far from that.
The EU have made it clear that they control the process and that the options available to us are all worse than remaining as a member state - while that may not be how they would formally state their key aim, that is their key aim. Unfortunately, the only form of Brexit that can command a majority in Parliament is the exact opposite - any Brexit that leaves the UK worse off would, necessarily, be rejected. And that is precisely the impasse that we have reached now.
My point is, though, that it wouldn't have made an ounce of difference had the UK Prime Minister had massive support for a pre-agreed agenda - unless it was acceptable to the EU, then it would be rejected. The result is that the only options left on the table by the EU for the UK to choose from are all unacceptable.
Last edited:
See the issue I have with your stance is that I don't see why Parliament didn't essentially vote on the measures they wanted, then enact Art.50. Because the house didn't have a majority on anything, so it wouldn't have mattered what had happened, nothing would have been agreed by our side anyway.
If the government had gone into these negotiations with the backing of the house, then they could have made some progress. That didn't happen and so we just rushed into things.
If you still stand by this, why couldn't this have been done prior, or have gone into negotiations with the House agreed upon a solution for NI and work with the EU in making it happen. We've only gotten an extension because nothing can be agreed by the house, and it looks like we'll get another one for the same reason come Oct.
The EU wouldn't discuss the negotiations prior, ok fine, so why did we just walk into them blind and without a unified house and government backing it.
I don't think they ever where, the government has been pretty publicly divided on Brexit, let alone what they wanted to accomplish
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Please see the edit I added to my last post which addresses your other points above... but on this, I would add that the entire thing has to be kept in the context of the UK-EU 'negotiations' - the point being that it never was going to be about the UK merely being able to agree on what it is we want, it is a question of what the UK can agree to accept given the (very limited and mostly bad) options left on the table by the EU for us to choose from.
That is what I'm suggesting and I don't agree it wouldn't have changed the outcome.
100% agree, it's the reason why Parliament cannot agree on anything, because every actual option makes us worse off. Which is why the should have at least tried to come to an agreement. If we went to the EU and said we want X Y and Z with a majority and the EU had rejected them or given us a deal with zero of those options, then Parliament can then decide if it is actually worth it. Rather than in this mess we have now where we have no options, except scrap it, or castrate the country.
- 29,394
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It wouldn't have. If options X, Y and Z are the only ones being offered/considered by the EU, what difference would it have made for the UK to have agreed on demanding options A, B and C beforehand?
The UK Government and the EU did actually come up with an agreement - but it has been rejected by Parliament three times. But the reasons for that are not as straightforward as simply saying that it is a bad deal. The main trouble is that it legally binds our hands before the really important talks have even been allowed to start. The Withdrawal Agreement as it stands would have been accepted already but for the backstop; and the backstop itself could have been rendered obsolete had the EU also provided legally binding guarantees of a mutually advantageous trade deal and a time frame for its implementation - but the Article 50 process has made that kind of guarantee impossible... thus, the backstop cannot be rendered obsolete (despite pledges to that effect from the EU), and thus the Withdrawal Agreement is fundamentally flawed and unacceptable.
The point is that had the EU been less inflexible (in their own demands and in their strict adherence to how negotiations were conducted), and had not effectively turned Northern Ireland into a bargaining chip, then the Withdrawal Agreement would have been accepted by the UK already. That said, even that would have been no guarantee of a future trade deal - and that's the problem. Without the backstop, the UK and the EU could fail to agree anything further and that would be that - but, with the backstop, the UK loses Northern Ireland unless a deal is struck, and what happens when the EU decides that any trade deal is conditional upon acceptance of any or all of their own demands, like free movement of people or access to UK waters?
What you are suggesting is that the UK ought to have approached Brexit with a set of clear demands and then refused to negotiate or show any flexibility. That would not have worked. The fact that the EU have let Theresa May slip through their hands is something they will undoubtedly come to regret - and Boris Johnson is the price we are all going to pay for it.
