** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[mikeonabike]

So who's position is dishonest?

After three years, we need to go back to the start.

An honest Brexit is possible, but nothing, so far, about the Government's approach has been honest, and for that reason it will fail. It's only a matter of how soon and how much damage is caused along the way.

In terms of honesty, the Government has simply carried on where the Leave campaign left off. And their strategy isn't really to avoid damage but to blame other people for any damage.

[bovlomov]

So who's position is dishonest?

After three years, we need to go back to the start.

An honest Brexit is possible, but nothing, so far, about the Government's approach has been honest, and for that reason it will fail. It's only a matter of how soon and how much damage is caused along the way.

In terms of honesty, the Government has simply carried on where the Leave campaign left off. And their strategy isn't really to avoid damage but to blame other people for any damage.

Yes, and this strategy was exactly predicted by many, right at the start. Is it successful? Among a few on these pages, at least.

[mercalia]

Butt out then EU start dealing with the UK as if there was no GFA or problem, then there would be no backstop insistance.

For the millionth time - the backstop was proposed by the UK government to get the UK government out of a hole that the UK government had dug itself. The obvious solution would have been to put a border in the Irish Sea - something I believe the EU was prepared to tolerate. The UK government found that unacceptable only because of its dependence on the DUP.

But imagine there was no GFA. Do you think a border would be OK? Do you think ruining the lives of people either side would be OK? If not, do you propose there be no border and no mechanism to deal with the cross border traffic? Would it satisfy the WTO? Or do you think there needs to be some sort of technological solution? What? That's the problem that all parties face.

Take no notice of Johnson. He's just using the issue to pass blame to the EU (to save him jail). It's about much more than the GFA.

The extension of the backstop to the whole of the UK was a UK idea, the original that it applied only to the North wasnt?

As for your other point ask the EU not me, they want a soln that harms the UK and no way affects them. Thats whats so wrong with the EUs position. They think that only they should be the winners, where really every one has to give up a little. The EU dont agree.

[roubaixtuesday]

Butt out then EU start dealing with the UK as if there was no GFA or problem, then there would be no backstop insistance.

For the millionth time - the backstop was proposed by the UK government to get the UK government out of a hole that the UK government had dug itself. The obvious solution would have been to put a border in the Irish Sea - something I believe the EU was prepared to tolerate. The UK government found that unacceptable only because of its dependence on the DUP.

But imagine there was no GFA. Do you think a border would be OK? Do you think ruining the lives of people either side would be OK? If not, do you propose there be no border and no mechanism to deal with the cross border traffic? Would it satisfy the WTO? Or do you think there needs to be some sort of technological solution? What? That's the problem that all parties face.

Take no notice of Johnson. He's just using the issue to pass blame to the EU (to save him jail). It's about much more than the GFA.

The extension of the backstop to the whole of the UK was a UK idea, the original that it applied only to the North wasnt?

As for your other point ask the EU not me, they want a soln that harms the UK and no way affects them. Thats whats so wrong with the EUs position. They think that only they should be the winners, where really every one has to give up a little. The EU dont agree.

Again. The backstop itself is a concession by the EU, enabling UK access to the single market without following all the rules.

[kwackers]

they want a soln that harms the UK and no way affects them. Thats whats so wrong with the EUs position. They think that only they should be the winners, where really every one has to give up a little.

Sorry, that's daft.
Why should they give anything up? It's our mess, we're the stupid ones. We're the ones with conflicting wants who can't make their minds up which is more important.

As I said above, I'd tell us to f off and in no uncertain terms.
Merkel looks to be getting cold feet as the potential costs bite but I reckon Macron will give us short shrift later.

[roubaixtuesday]

they want a soln that harms the UK and no way affects them. Thats whats so wrong with the EUs position. They think that only they should be the winners, where really every one has to give up a little.

Sorry, that's daft.
Why should they give anything up? It's our mess, we're the stupid ones. We're the ones with conflicting wants who can't make their minds up which is more important.

As I said above, I'd tell us to f off and in no uncertain terms.
Merkel looks to be getting cold feet as the potential costs bite but I reckon Macron will give us short shrift later.

Merkel exactly restated the EU position, just in diplomatic terms.

Withdrawal agreement is fixed, changes to the political declaration are possible.

[mercalia]

Rubbish. The problem has been caused by the UK decison to leave.

Your view is typical amongst Brexiters - all problems are the fault of the evil EU. You are deluded if you can't realise that all the problems have been caused by you and your fellow Brexit voters. You've created a problem but want to blame others for it.

eh I am not a Brexit-eer. so thats another thing you have got wrong. But I do point the finger at the EUs dishonest position

Merkel gives Johnson 30 days to find solution to avoid no-deal Brexit

should bejust as valid

Johnson gives Merkel 30 days to find solution to avoid no-deal Brexit

The problem ISNT the UKs problem, soley. Therein is the dishonesty and buck passing of the EU. The EU is arrogant and deluded, trying to avoid responsibility, because to do so would create complications for its internal market. The fact is it cant both adhere to the GFA and also a strict interpretation of its internal market - its denying reality, pretending its the UKs problem and therfore the UK has to suffer. Therein is the delusion. The delusions of a bully.


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eal-brexit

1. The UK would like to have two different border regimes with the EU, one at ports and an entirely different one in NI.
2. This is a UK demand - the EU is happy with one, as we have now.
3. The UK is obliged under WTO to control trade across the NI border, unless there is a free trade agreement which aligns customs tariffs (ie unless we're in a customs union).
4. The UK proposed the backstop to meet this obligation, whilst "alternative arrangements" are developed to try and circumvent that need.
5. Nobody anywhere believes these "alternative arrangements" can be put in place during a two year transition, and many are sceptical in the extreme if it is possible at all.

It is the UK demand for two borders with the EU with contradictory requirements which is the root of the problem. No other countries in the world anywhere have such an arrangement.

To say that it is EU bullying to point this out is, frankly, beyond bizarre.

You make it seem that the UK has been in the driving seat all along. Thats a fantasy
1) you will have to explain more.
3) Is also true of the EU
4) isnt true it was some thing that the EU and the UK came to. For the UK it was more a matter of the GFA whereas for te EU it is now seen as more about their internal market protection. Its this realisation thats the hub of the problem. remember No trade deal has been done so the issue of borders is only relevent to the GFA AT THE MOMENT.
5)You present the matter as if it is all or nothing - thats how the EU wants to see it so reject the matter. Of course they do as they primarily want to protect their market. As I suggested elswhere as far as the GFA is concerned it would be enough to be a work in progress. even at proper borders you still have smuggling

Your implication that the EU is pure and clean and the epitomy of reasonableness is bizzare. They are are as clean as conmen appear to be, you have been taken in. May was taken in ;We were but not now. Its a shame that Boris wasnt the PM rather than May as things might have been different

[Mick F]

I said hundreds of pages back? that the Irish border is an EU problem.
It's the EU who aren't happy, not UK.

Rubbish . It's the UK wanting to leave the eu that has caused the problem. It's a problem created by the UK.Tyical leaver, Ypu and folk who think like you have created a problem but you try to make out it's caused by someone else.

As far as UK is concerned, the border can be open for trade. It's the EU who are being protectionist over their borders. They jealously guard them.

[bovlomov]

Its a shame that Boris wasnt the PM rather than May as things might have been different

Do you believe anything Johnson says? I mean, I don't want to disappoint you, but he has a long history of saying any old thing, betraying colleagues, readers, friends, spouses, girlfriends, constituents...

Even on Brexit he has betrayed you - whatever your views. If you think the backstop is so terrible, Johnson voted for it. If you think the backstop is necessary for Brexit to happen, Johnson voted against it. If you think immigration should stay more or less as it has been, Johnson disagrees. If you think immigration should be drastically reduced, Johnson disagrees. Johnson supported staying in the single market and the Customs Union.. The list goes on.

I'm not against Johnson's views on Brexit. He has none. I'm mystified why you have confidence in this transparent confidence trickster.

[mercalia]

Its a shame that Boris wasnt the PM rather than May as things might have been different

Do you believe anything Johnson says? I mean, I don't want to disappoint you, but he has a long history of saying any old thing, betraying colleagues, readers, friends, spouses, girlfriends, constituents...

Even on Brexit he has betrayed you - whatever your views. If you think the backstop is so terrible, Johnson voted for it. If you think the backstop is necessary for Brexit to happen, Johnson voted against it. If you think immigration should stay more or less as it has been, Johnson disagrees. If you think immigration should be drastically reduced, Johnson disagrees. Johnson supported staying in the single market and the Customs Union.. The list goes on.

I'm not against Johnson's views on Brexit. He has none. I'm mystified why you have confidence in this transparent confidence trickster.

Separate the man from what he has said. His views on the undemocratic nature of the socalled backstop are spot on. It undermines the sovereigny of the country. You keep on Ad Hominem arguments that at best are critical of the man.Yes Its a sad state of affairs that we have to rely on some one like Boris make some valid points. Mrs May should have done so and never agreed to the brexit document, but she was so hell bent on making a mark that she ignored the matter, she allowed herself to be conned, right up to the end justa month or so ago

[roubaixtuesday]

I said hundreds of pages back? that the Irish border is an EU problem.
It's the EU who aren't happy, not UK.

Rubbish . It's the UK wanting to leave the eu that has caused the problem. It's a problem created by the UK.Tyical leaver, Ypu and folk who think like you have created a problem but you try to make out it's caused by someone else.

As far as UK is concerned, the border can be open for trade. It's the EU who are being protectionist over their borders. They jealously guard them.

This is hilarious. The entire point of Brexit is supposedly to take control our own borders off the EU!

[kwackers]

Separate the man from what he has said. His views on the undemocratic nature of the socalled backstop are spot on.

Hate to tell you this but if you wait long enough BoJo will say something you agree with.
His words are meaningless and certainly of no use for making a point since all bases are or will be covered.

[mercalia]

Separate the man from what he has said. His views on the undemocratic nature of the socalled backstop are spot on.

Hate to tell you this but if you wait long enough BoJo will say something you agree with.
His words are meaningless and certainly of no use for making a point since all bases are or will be covered.

still Ad Hominem - had a monkey come up with it still valid , no one else had so far until now?

[roubaixtuesday]

Separate the man from what he has said. His views on the undemocratic nature of the socalled backstop are spot on.

He doesn't believe the backstop is undemocratic. We know this because he voted for it.

[roubaixtuesday]

From Another Place