Yeah. Years more of this. I foresee a long period of some kind of action by brexiters and reaction by remainers. I also believe the onus is 100% on the brexit voters in the UK to sort it out, not the Irish, not the EU, not the remainers. Clearly a person like me will have to suffer the consequences of brexit, but I am one of the lucky ones with dual nationality
Incidentally, why are you lucky because of dual nationality? Intending to move to Ireland any time soon?
Not sure you will find the ‘grass is greener’.
I heard there's 40 shades of green there.
In that case, it is fortunate that I am entitled to an Irish passport if I want one
No politician of any flavour is going to support reversing the referendum result. The aim now is to prove to enough voters that the Brexit we will have will make them worse off and not deliver what they believed they voted for. Negotiate what deal we can and put that back to the people.
Agreed, not today. But over the coming months, depending on progress or lack of, the issue of ‘reversal’ will be publicly discussed.
Oh, I so hope you are right. I've got nothing to lose by saying how awful it is and how I want an immediate reversal, but I can understand why most politicians are baulking at that at the moment. At some point though they've got to admit the truth and say that this farce is never going to do anybody any favours.
No politician of any flavour is going to support reversing the referendum result. The aim now is to prove to enough voters that the Brexit we will have will make them worse off and not deliver what they believed they voted for. Negotiate what deal we can and put that back to the people.
Agreed, not today. But over the coming months, depending on progress or lack of, the issue of ‘reversal’ will be publicly discussed.
Oh, I so hope you are right. I've got nothing to lose by saying how awful it is and how I want an immediate reversal, but I can understand why most politicians are baulking at that at the moment. At some point though they've got to admit the truth and say that this farce is never going to do anybody any favours.
I know you will not agree but, as you are aware, I believe it can work.
The question is whether our political class has the ability to find the right people to enact it.
And, from your perspective, when a ‘remainer’ politician has the balls to stand up and fight for what he/she believes in.
The second option will happen in due course. I just hope the first does as well.
Well OK it can be reversed. My thing is that we would never hear the end of it. Right now I am in the position to ensure brexiters never hear the end of it instead.
So if it was reversed, apparently you would never hear the end of it.
And if it stays, you will make sure Brexiters never hear the end of it.
Sorry, but I do not really see your point. All it means is that people, including you, support a viewpoint which we discuss.
So what? Much better than being silent and acquiescent.
I am far from silent. I suppose what I want is for about 10 million brexit voters to say 'I was clearly wrong/misled/hasty or whatever' and engineer a reversal process that sits powerfully over the country as the brexit vote does now.
The fact we can have this discussion ... and that it is ongoing throughout the entire country ... and that no one would even think of stopping us ... demonstrates that we are in a democracy.
In your mind, not as perfect as the EU democracy, but it still works, doesn’t it
The word 'works' is open to debate. If you mean that it must be working because we can have this discussion I would agree. On a broader perspective I have seen more or less the same ruling class in charge throughout my lifetime, and wish a working democracy could effect greater change in that.
Well OK it can be reversed. My thing is that we would never hear the end of it. Right now I am in the position to ensure brexiters never hear the end of it instead.
So if it was reversed, apparently you would never hear the end of it.
And if it stays, you will make sure Brexiters never hear the end of it.
Sorry, but I do not really see your point. All it means is that people, including you, support a viewpoint which we discuss.
So what? Much better than being silent and acquiescent.
I am far from silent. I suppose what I want is for about 10 million brexit voters to say 'I was clearly wrong/misled/hasty or whatever' and engineer a reversal process that sits powerfully over the country as the brexit vote does now.
The fact we can have this discussion ... and that it is ongoing throughout the entire country ... and that no one would even think of stopping us ... demonstrates that we are in a democracy.
In your mind, not as perfect as the EU democracy, but it still works, doesn’t it
The word 'works' is open to debate. If you mean that it must be working because we can have this discussion I would agree. On a broader perspective I have seen more or less the same ruling class in charge throughout my lifetime, and wish a working democracy could effect greater change in that.
As do many of us.
But you are again straying from the subject. This is not a Brexit issue nor will it be solved by staying in or out of the EU. Membership of the EU will not bring about the change you want.
In fact, if it goes the way of federality that you seek, you may well end up with a worse ruling elite if ‘President Macron’ goes on to rule Europe as his Napoleonic tendencies would seem to indicate he wants.
No politician of any flavour is going to support reversing the referendum result. The aim now is to prove to enough voters that the Brexit we will have will make them worse off and not deliver what they believed they voted for. Negotiate what deal we can and put that back to the people.
Agreed, not today. But over the coming months, depending on progress or lack of, the issue of ‘reversal’ will be publicly discussed.
Oh, I so hope you are right. I've got nothing to lose by saying how awful it is and how I want an immediate reversal, but I can understand why most politicians are baulking at that at the moment. At some point though they've got to admit the truth and say that this farce is never going to do anybody any favours.
I know you will not agree but, as you are aware, I believe it can work.
The question is whether our political class has the ability to find the right people to enact it.
And, from your perspective, when a ‘remainer’ politician has the balls to stand up and fight for what he/she believes in.
The second option will happen in due course. I just hope the first does as well.
At last we seem to be able to agree on something. There are a lot of remain politicians but many of them continue to go on about respecting the will of the British people instead of saying vote for me because I want/intend to reverse brexit. Even the Lib Dems go on about having another vote, Labour are trying to find a way of having a 'soft' brexit, UKIP we know want out and the Greens are like the Lib Dems. I am way to past it to form a pro EU anti brexit party in my constituency, but I believe plenty of politicians feel like me but don't have as you put it, the balls, to admit it.
No politician of any flavour is going to support reversing the referendum result. The aim now is to prove to enough voters that the Brexit we will have will make them worse off and not deliver what they believed they voted for. Negotiate what deal we can and put that back to the people.
Agreed, not today. But over the coming months, depending on progress or lack of, the issue of ‘reversal’ will be publicly discussed.
Oh, I so hope you are right. I've got nothing to lose by saying how awful it is and how I want an immediate reversal, but I can understand why most politicians are baulking at that at the moment. At some point though they've got to admit the truth and say that this farce is never going to do anybody any favours.
I know you will not agree but, as you are aware, I believe it can work.
The question is whether our political class has the ability to find the right people to enact it.
And, from your perspective, when a ‘remainer’ politician has the balls to stand up and fight for what he/she believes in.
The second option will happen in due course. I just hope the first does as well.
At last we seem to be able to agree on something. There are a lot of remain politicians but many of them continue to go on about respecting the will of the British people instead of saying vote for me because I want/intend to reverse brexit. Even the Lib Dems go on about having another vote, Labour are trying to find a way of having a 'soft' brexit, UKIP we know want out and the Greens are like the Lib Dems. I am way to past it to form a pro EU anti brexit party in my constituency, but I believe plenty of politicians feel like me but don't have as you put it, the balls, to admit it.
The Tories won’t do it; Corbyn is playing a waiting game and, because he sees power in his sights, will do nothing; the others are as you say.
But you will get your ‘hero’ within the next few months, although I haven’t a clue who it will be.
Well OK it can be reversed. My thing is that we would never hear the end of it. Right now I am in the position to ensure brexiters never hear the end of it instead.
So if it was reversed, apparently you would never hear the end of it.
And if it stays, you will make sure Brexiters never hear the end of it.
Sorry, but I do not really see your point. All it means is that people, including you, support a viewpoint which we discuss.
So what? Much better than being silent and acquiescent.
I am far from silent. I suppose what I want is for about 10 million brexit voters to say 'I was clearly wrong/misled/hasty or whatever' and engineer a reversal process that sits powerfully over the country as the brexit vote does now.
The fact we can have this discussion ... and that it is ongoing throughout the entire country ... and that no one would even think of stopping us ... demonstrates that we are in a democracy.
In your mind, not as perfect as the EU democracy, but it still works, doesn’t it
The word 'works' is open to debate. If you mean that it must be working because we can have this discussion I would agree. On a broader perspective I have seen more or less the same ruling class in charge throughout my lifetime, and wish a working democracy could effect greater change in that.
As do many of us.
But you are again straying from the subject. This is not a Brexit issue nor will it be solved by staying in or out of the EU. Membership of the EU will not bring about the change you want.
In fact, if it goes the way of federality that you seek, you may well end up with a worse ruling elite if ‘President Macron’ goes on to rule Europe as his Napoleonic tendencies would seem to indicate he wants.
You could be right. I am not really qualified to declare that Macron has Napoleonic tendencies, maybe you are privy to more information about that than me. What I do think is that the UK is already part of a Federation of nations in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland so I am more relaxed than most in the concept of extending that federality.
Well OK it can be reversed. My thing is that we would never hear the end of it. Right now I am in the position to ensure brexiters never hear the end of it instead.
So if it was reversed, apparently you would never hear the end of it.
And if it stays, you will make sure Brexiters never hear the end of it.
Sorry, but I do not really see your point. All it means is that people, including you, support a viewpoint which we discuss.
So what? Much better than being silent and acquiescent.
I am far from silent. I suppose what I want is for about 10 million brexit voters to say 'I was clearly wrong/misled/hasty or whatever' and engineer a reversal process that sits powerfully over the country as the brexit vote does now.
The fact we can have this discussion ... and that it is ongoing throughout the entire country ... and that no one would even think of stopping us ... demonstrates that we are in a democracy.
In your mind, not as perfect as the EU democracy, but it still works, doesn’t it
The word 'works' is open to debate. If you mean that it must be working because we can have this discussion I would agree. On a broader perspective I have seen more or less the same ruling class in charge throughout my lifetime, and wish a working democracy could effect greater change in that.
As do many of us.
But you are again straying from the subject. This is not a Brexit issue nor will it be solved by staying in or out of the EU. Membership of the EU will not bring about the change you want.
In fact, if it goes the way of federality that you seek, you may well end up with a worse ruling elite if ‘President Macron’ goes on to rule Europe as his Napoleonic tendencies would seem to indicate he wants.
You could be right. I am not really qualified to declare that Macron has Napoleonic tendencies, maybe you are privy to more information about that than me. What I do think is that the UK is already part of a Federation of nations in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland so I am more relaxed than most in the concept of extending that federality.
I do not believe that the UK is a federation. I am sure those more qualified than me can clarify that.
The meaning I just looked at states: “Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state.”
Macron is a very interesting character, although not one I warm to. I believe he is as I have loosely described.
Yeah. Years more of this. I foresee a long period of some kind of action by brexiters and reaction by remainers. I also believe the onus is 100% on the brexit voters in the UK to sort it out, not the Irish, not the EU, not the remainers. Clearly a person like me will have to suffer the consequences of brexit, but I am one of the lucky ones with dual nationality
Incidentally, why are you lucky because of dual nationality? Intending to move to Ireland any time soon?
Not sure you will find the ‘grass is greener’.
I heard there's 40 shades of green there.
Is that a raunchy agricultural story, all about a young farmer taking control of his baler to make sure that the knots are good and tight????
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
I would say no, most of the time (a skill learnt from females of my acquaintance), the issue is whether or not the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
I can't believe Davis hasn't been sacked yet, I don't think there's anyone left - Brexiter or Remainer - who thinks he's capable of negotiating a decent deal, is there?
I can't believe Davis hasn't been sacked yet, I don't think there's anyone left - Brexiter or Remainer - who thinks he's capable of negotiating a decent deal, is there?
I suspect that is what he wants so that he can be seen as some kind of martyr to his Brexiter mates. Yesterday looked like an attempt to stab Theresa in the back before her statement in Parliament today.
No politician of any flavour is going to support reversing the referendum result. The aim now is to prove to enough voters that the Brexit we will have will make them worse off and not deliver what they believed they voted for. Negotiate what deal we can and put that back to the people.
Reversing the referendum simply doesn't work politically in 2017 - look at the Lib Dem polls! People supporting that line were simply not respecting the votes of millions nor recognising what you have stated. So we need to see a different question asked of Parliament and/or the people based upon the actual reality once there is clarity next year. Once HMG have answered the questions which came out five minutes after agreeing phase one.
Then we should embrace the opportunity to discuss and endorse certain aspects whilst being very aware that those supporting a "hard Brexit" will attempt something in the new year. It appears that they can't wait until 2018 with some strange comments and interviews emerging before the ink is dry - before the first round is even formally signed off by the council of ministers.
Not sure the EU27 will be that fussed for they have already asked the next question: what does the UK actually want? Fortunately there are some adults involved in this process!
Didn't hear the Andrew Marr interview but listened to this on LBC and can't see he's said anything that's not out of line with the EU report. The EU report says nothing is settled on HOW the Irish border issue is settled until the negotiations are concluded, except a commitment on all sides to avoid a hard border whatever the outcome of trade negotiations. How the Irish press can say the EU statement set out a binding legally enforceable obligation beggars belief. Had any of them read the report for themselves? It contains the standard EU get out clause - "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". As Davis points out, that was on the insistence of the EU, not the UK.
The whole purpose of the fudge, as is every such EU position, is to allow each side to interpret the words to show they have delivered what they promised and justify whatever is delivered even if it's not what was wanted. If reported accurately, he was giving the interpretation for UK consumption, not the interpretation which was being fed to the Irish people to pretend progress had been made. Davis seems to be trying to say that a commitment in good faith is worth more than the pretence of "progress" towards a solution.
If the domestic press want to start using the other sides commentary to stir up things up to grab the headlines, more fool those who fall for it.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
I would say no, most of the time (a skill learnt from females of my acquaintance), the issue is whether or not the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
My point, also covered by @Dippenhall , is that Dublin appear to be stating that the deal is “binding” - this is not actually true.
We are talking about politicians here - when do they anything apart from prevaricate?
"Undeniably, the facts have changed since June 2016: only a fool would say otherwise."
Put me on the list Geraint, you arrogant pillock. EU still heading for closer political and fiscal union last time I looked, or has that changed Geraint?
The facts from Gipsy Rose Geraint who knows already the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and what will and will not happen:
Brexit voters voted for £350m a week to the NHS - Not me Geraint - does that exclude me from your definition of a fool? Brexit voters voted for access to single market - Have you ruled this out then Geraint? Brexit voters voted for low inflation - Like we have at present you mean Geraint? Brexit voters voted for a high pound - So you think there are advantages to a overpriced sterling - you fool? Brexit voters voted for not paying any exit bill - Says who? Brexit voters voted for no trade tariffs - No trade tariffs with whom? So you know where the tariffs will be and how much and how relevant - you fool? Brexit voters voted for more jobs - Currently, highest employment rate ever.
No wonder Remainers gets confused with fact and fiction, they read the Guardian for their opinions.
We don't need a referendum, there are no new facts and there will be no new facts until Brexit has happened.
We have elections in the country and at any time a pro EU party can stand on a manifesto that seeks re-entry to the EU.
We had an election and voters voted for a referendum. We don't have a referendum unless government has a mandate to call one. This government has no mandate and unless Labour is elected in the meantime on a manifesto to hold a second referendum, the likes of Geraint Davies should be upholding democracy instead of undermining it. He is in the Council of Europe so knows how the gravy train works, and wouldn't want to lose access. He once had the highest expenses claims in a particular year of any constituency MP spending £38k on postage and £20k for his London flat and had his public profile heavily edited ahead of the 2015 expenses investigation - Fact - was in the Guardian.
OK. So the deal on Friday is essentially meaningless because it turns out it isn't after all. It seems to be a manoeuvre of some kind and it can eventually be ignored. Guess what? That still means there has to be a plan for control of the border. There still is no plan, although on Marr yesterday Davis repeated the DUP bollocks about trusted traders, use of technology, approved businesses, electronic invoicing and such other unworkable stuff. The Tories undid the significance of their own deal in a couple of days.
How stupid is David Davis ? His has already cast doubt on the “agreement” reached on Friday and now the EU27 might well not agree that progress enough has been made to take the talks forward. Why should Ireland not veto ? They were told one thing by Westminster when it clearly means another. No progress that I can see.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
I would say no, most of the time (a skill learnt from females of my acquaintance), the issue is whether or not the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
My point, also covered by @Dippenhall , is that Dublin appear to be stating that the deal is “binding” - this is not actually true.
We are talking about politicians here - when do they anything apart from prevaricate?
My understanding of what David Davis stated this morning is that he now believes that it is (admittedly I'm quoting from the Guardian website):
Of course it’s legally enforceable ... It’s more than legally enforceable. In the event that the withdrawal agreement does not happen, then we would still be seeking to maintain an invisible border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. That was the point. I was making the point that it was much more than just in the treaty; it’s what we want to do anyway.
The particular issue is the statement about what would happen in the absence of an agreement.
The fairly unequivocal wording of the relevant paragraph on the Irish border (49) is:
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any further arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Contrary to @Dippenhall's view, the wording is explicit about what will happen if nothing is agreed (so it is separate from the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for a Brexit divorce settlement and any future trade agreement).
The Irish Government made absolutely clear that the spin placed upon this wording in yesterday's Marr interview was completely unacceptable. It's not just a question of pretending that progress had been made - without a firm commitment from the UK about what will protect the status quo on the border, the Irish/EU27 position on "sufficient progress" is clear, and not leading to advances in the negotiations.
"Undeniably, the facts have changed since June 2016: only a fool would say otherwise."
Put me on the list Geraint, you arrogant pillock. EU still heading for closer political and fiscal union last time I looked, or has that changed Geraint?
The facts from Gipsy Rose Geraint who knows already the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and what will and will not happen:
Brexit voters voted for £350m a week to the NHS - Not me Geraint - does that exclude me from your definition of a fool? Brexit voters voted for access to single market - Have you ruled this out then Geraint? Brexit voters voted for low inflation - Like we have at present you mean Geraint? Brexit voters voted for a high pound - So you think there are advantages to a overpriced sterling - you fool? Brexit voters voted for not paying any exit bill - Says who? Brexit voters voted for no trade tariffs - No trade tariffs with whom? So you know where the tariffs will be and how much and how relevant - you fool? Brexit voters voted for more jobs - Currently, highest employment rate ever.
No wonder Remainers gets confused with fact and fiction, they read the Guardian for their opinions.
We don't need a referendum, there are no new facts and there will be no new facts until Brexit has happened.
We have elections in the country and at any time a pro EU party can stand on a manifesto that seeks re-entry to the EU.
We had an election and voters voted for a referendum. We don't have a referendum unless government has a mandate to call one. This government has no mandate and unless Labour is elected in the meantime on a manifesto to hold a second referendum, the likes of Geraint Davies should be upholding democracy instead of undermining it. He is in the Council of Europe so knows how the gravy train works, and wouldn't want to lose access. He once had the highest expenses claims in a particular year of any constituency MP spending £38k on postage and £20k for his London flat and had his public profile heavily edited ahead of the 2015 expenses investigation - Fact - was in the Guardian.
I agree, there are no new facts. We just have the same facts that the Brexit Daily Mail reading fools and idiots refused to acknowledge in their determination to achieve their Little Englander dreams. Facts like you cannot have a frictionless border in Ireland if the UK is outside the CU; facts like it is pure fantasy to believe that the EU27 will allow us access to the SM on anything but terms that are significantly worse than what we have currently; facts like achieving FTAs with Bangladesh and Rwanda and Australia is completely without value compared to the FTA we currently have with the biggest and most prosperous trading block in the World; facts like the EU will remove a significant number of jobs and businesses from the City, an industry sector that effectively pays for the rest of the country at the moment; facts like that only 37% of the electorate voted Brexit (and as Nick Cleggg stated in his recent excellent book on Brexit a lot more of those voters have since died compared to those who voted Remain) so the constant whining from Brexiteers about the 'will of the people' and democracy was nonsense the day after the referendum and it is even more of a nonsense now.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
I would say no, most of the time (a skill learnt from females of my acquaintance), the issue is whether or not the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
My point, also covered by @Dippenhall , is that Dublin appear to be stating that the deal is “binding” - this is not actually true.
We are talking about politicians here - when do they anything apart from prevaricate?
My understanding of what David Davis stated this morning is that he now believes that it is (admittedly I'm quoting from the Guardian website):
Of course it’s legally enforceable ... It’s more than legally enforceable. In the event that the withdrawal agreement does not happen, then we would still be seeking to maintain an invisible border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. That was the point. I was making the point that it was much more than just in the treaty; it’s what we want to do anyway.
The particular issue is the statement about what would happen in the absence of an agreement.
The fairly unequivocal wording of the relevant paragraph on the Irish border (49) is:
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any further arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Contrary to @Dippenhall's view, the wording is explicit about what will happen if nothing is agreed (so it is separate from the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for a Brexit divorce settlement and any future trade agreement).
The Irish Government made absolutely clear that the spin placed upon this wording in yesterday's Marr interview was completely unacceptable. It's not just a question of pretending that progress had been made - without a firm commitment from the UK about what will protect the status quo on the border, the Irish/EU27 position on "sufficient progress" is clear, and not leading to advances in the negotiations.
In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
I am no lawyer, but surely it can be argued that because the above is within the agreement, it can be overridden by the preamble that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
Is this making a mountain out of a molehill?
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
I would say no, most of the time (a skill learnt from females of my acquaintance), the issue is whether or not the negotiations are being carried out in good faith.
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
My point, also covered by @Dippenhall , is that Dublin appear to be stating that the deal is “binding” - this is not actually true.
We are talking about politicians here - when do they anything apart from prevaricate?
My understanding of what David Davis stated this morning is that he now believes that it is (admittedly I'm quoting from the Guardian website):
Of course it’s legally enforceable ... It’s more than legally enforceable. In the event that the withdrawal agreement does not happen, then we would still be seeking to maintain an invisible border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. That was the point. I was making the point that it was much more than just in the treaty; it’s what we want to do anyway.
The particular issue is the statement about what would happen in the absence of an agreement.
The fairly unequivocal wording of the relevant paragraph on the Irish border (49) is:
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any further arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Contrary to @Dippenhall's view, the wording is explicit about what will happen if nothing is agreed (so it is separate from the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for a Brexit divorce settlement and any future trade agreement).
The Irish Government made absolutely clear that the spin placed upon this wording in yesterday's Marr interview was completely unacceptable. It's not just a question of pretending that progress had been made - without a firm commitment from the UK about what will protect the status quo on the border, the Irish/EU27 position on "sufficient progress" is clear, and not leading to advances in the negotiations.
In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
I am no lawyer, but surely it can be argued that because the above is within the agreement, it can be overridden by the preamble that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I would suggest that, in the context of the paragraph as a whole (or even the wider document), and David Davis' climbdown this morning, that the highlighted text relates to no agreement - which kind of sits outside the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - it is in contrast to the rest of the joint report document, which would only be legally binding when incorporated within an exit agreement.
[Edit]
The reason why this is different from the rest of the joint report is the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement - and the UK has a legally binding commitment under the GFA in relation to cross border activities and cooperation.
But the really concerning issue for everyone is that the negotiations require goodwill and both sides acting in good faith (no matter how far apart they may be); the immediate repudiation of the commitments made (particularly in advance of the EU27 considering the joint report) is just about the most dim thing that anyone could have done.
"It doesn't take into account the will of the people"
You do realise that we voted to join, then we voted to leave? And that when we voted to join, we joined. And that when we voted to leave, we started the process to leave?
Davis will change his interpretation depending on his audience and previous reaction.
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.
Comments
The question is whether our political class has the ability to find the right people to enact it.
And, from your perspective, when a ‘remainer’ politician has the balls to stand up and fight for what he/she believes in.
The second option will happen in due course. I just hope the first does as well.
But you are again straying from the subject. This is not a Brexit issue nor will it be solved by staying in or out of the EU. Membership of the EU will not bring about the change you want.
In fact, if it goes the way of federality that you seek, you may well end up with a worse ruling elite if ‘President Macron’ goes on to rule Europe as his Napoleonic tendencies would seem to indicate he wants.
Even the Lib Dems go on about having another vote, Labour are trying to find a way of having a 'soft' brexit, UKIP we know want out and the Greens are like the Lib Dems.
I am way to past it to form a pro EU anti brexit party in my constituency, but I believe plenty of politicians feel like me but don't have as you put it, the balls, to admit it.
But you will get your ‘hero’ within the next few months, although I haven’t a clue who it will be.
What I do think is that the UK is already part of a Federation of nations in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland so I am more relaxed than most in the concept of extending that federality.
The meaning I just looked at states: “Although political power may be delegated through devolution to local governments by statute, the central government remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an example of a unitary state.”
Macron is a very interesting character, although not one I warm to. I believe he is as I have loosely described.
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/ireland-says-it-will-hold-uk-to-binding-deal-on-post-brexit-border-1.3322001.
irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/irish-and-uk-governments-clash-over-significance-of-brexit-agreement-818053.html.
And from the Commission (though probably not a direct reaction):
https://irishtimes.com/news/politics/british-pledges-hard-to-reconcile-claim-eu-brexit-negotiators-1.3322530
Personally, I think that Ireland and the EU27 will be seeking "clarification" from the Prime Minister as to whether Mr Davis is representing the official UK position. If so, I fear that Friday will be seen as a false dawn.
Even if this little spat can be resolved (probably best not to have Adam Boulton be compering the press conference afterwards: https://independent.ie/irish-news/politics/you-irish-need-to-get-over-yourselves-sky-news-host-responds-after-controversial-interview-with-simon-coveney-36394432.html), there are still concerns about what will happen next:
https://irishtimes.com/business/economy/big-brexit-fudge-has-not-removed-risk-of-catastrophic-outcome-1.3322099.
There is also an article about Kate Hoey, but I like people on this forum too much...
I know I shouldn’t be awkward but, as I stated before, the agreement does state that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
As much as I have no time for him, doesn't this mean that Davis is right?
While I accept that the commitments made may not have legal, and that circumstances (and associated solutions) may change over time, it is reasonable to expect slightly more than (by my calculations) 51 hours before the UK Government seems to undermine them.
It worries me that someone allegedly playing a key role in negotiations might not recognise the value of not making statements on national television that may well lead to he process being delayed (a primary school kid would probably have worked out that the minimum that is required is to say nothing until after the EU Council meeting this week).
The immediate concern for me, personally, is that he is also saying that the Irish border, no deal, fall back position outlined on Friday is also not really a commitment that the UK Government will respect if there's no deal. If this is the case, I cannot see the Irish Government being prepared to accept this as "sufficient progress" later this week - and, as the EU has followed the Irish lead on the border question to date, this could imperil the entire process (and maybe that is what David Davis wants to do).
Then we should embrace the opportunity to discuss and endorse certain aspects whilst being very aware that those supporting a "hard Brexit" will attempt something in the new year. It appears that they can't wait until 2018 with some strange comments and interviews emerging before the ink is dry - before the first round is even formally signed off by the council of ministers.
Not sure the EU27 will be that fussed for they have already asked the next question: what does the UK actually want? Fortunately there are some adults involved in this process!
The whole purpose of the fudge, as is every such EU position, is to allow each side to interpret the words to show they have delivered what they promised and justify whatever is delivered even if it's not what was wanted. If reported accurately, he was giving the interpretation for UK consumption, not the interpretation which was being fed to the Irish people to pretend progress had been made. Davis seems to be trying to say that a commitment in good faith is worth more than the pretence of "progress" towards a solution.
If the domestic press want to start using the other sides commentary to stir up things up to grab the headlines, more fool those who fall for it.
We are talking about politicians here - when do they anything apart from prevaricate?
Put me on the list Geraint, you arrogant pillock. EU still heading for closer political and fiscal union last time I looked, or has that changed Geraint?
The facts from Gipsy Rose Geraint who knows already the outcome of the Brexit negotiations and what will and will not happen:
Brexit voters voted for £350m a week to the NHS - Not me Geraint - does that exclude me from your definition of a fool?
Brexit voters voted for access to single market - Have you ruled this out then Geraint?
Brexit voters voted for low inflation - Like we have at present you mean Geraint?
Brexit voters voted for a high pound - So you think there are advantages to a overpriced sterling - you fool?
Brexit voters voted for not paying any exit bill - Says who?
Brexit voters voted for no trade tariffs - No trade tariffs with whom? So you know where the tariffs will be and how much and how relevant - you fool?
Brexit voters voted for more jobs - Currently, highest employment rate ever.
No wonder Remainers gets confused with fact and fiction, they read the Guardian for their opinions.
We don't need a referendum, there are no new facts and there will be no new facts until Brexit has happened.
We have elections in the country and at any time a pro EU party can stand on a manifesto that seeks re-entry to the EU.
We had an election and voters voted for a referendum. We don't have a referendum unless government has a mandate to call one. This government has no mandate and unless Labour is elected in the meantime on a manifesto to hold a second referendum, the likes of Geraint Davies should be upholding democracy instead of undermining it. He is in the Council of Europe so knows how the gravy train works, and wouldn't want to lose access. He once had the highest expenses claims in a particular year of any constituency MP spending £38k on postage and £20k for his London flat and had his public profile heavily edited ahead of the 2015 expenses investigation - Fact - was in the Guardian.
So the deal on Friday is essentially meaningless because it turns out it isn't after all. It seems to be a manoeuvre of some kind and it can eventually be ignored.
Guess what?
That still means there has to be a plan for control of the border.
There still is no plan, although on Marr yesterday Davis repeated the DUP bollocks about trusted traders, use of technology, approved businesses, electronic invoicing and such other unworkable stuff.
The Tories undid the significance of their own deal in a couple of days.
Of course it’s legally enforceable ... It’s more than legally enforceable. In the event that the withdrawal agreement does not happen, then we would still be seeking to maintain an invisible border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. That was the point. I was making the point that it was much more than just in the treaty; it’s what we want to do anyway.
The particular issue is the statement about what would happen in the absence of an agreement.
The fairly unequivocal wording of the relevant paragraph on the Irish border (49) is:
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any further arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Contrary to @Dippenhall's view, the wording is explicit about what will happen if nothing is agreed (so it is separate from the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" for a Brexit divorce settlement and any future trade agreement).
The Irish Government made absolutely clear that the spin placed upon this wording in yesterday's Marr interview was completely unacceptable. It's not just a question of pretending that progress had been made - without a firm commitment from the UK about what will protect the status quo on the border, the Irish/EU27 position on "sufficient progress" is clear, and not leading to advances in the negotiations.
I am no lawyer, but surely it can be argued that because the above is within the agreement, it can be overridden by the preamble that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
[Edit]
The reason why this is different from the rest of the joint report is the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement - and the UK has a legally binding commitment under the GFA in relation to cross border activities and cooperation.
But the really concerning issue for everyone is that the negotiations require goodwill and both sides acting in good faith (no matter how far apart they may be); the immediate repudiation of the commitments made (particularly in advance of the EU27 considering the joint report) is just about the most dim thing that anyone could have done.
But why do *you* want to leave?
"Because the EU is undemocratic"
In what way?
"Because it's unelected"
What do you mean?
"It doesn't take into account the will of the people"
You do realise that we voted to join, then we voted to leave? And that when we voted to join, we joined. And that when we voted to leave, we started the process to leave?
"Yes"
But it's undemocratic?
"Yes"
Do you see that you're contradicting yourself?
[long pause]
"We must leave - it's the will of the people"
I have worked on trade finance contracts and agreements most of my working life. If I was the recipient of such wording, in the preamble and content, I most definitely would not consider myself protected and would seek an amendment to the preamble which clearly states which articles are exempted from the nothing and everything catch-all phrase. It cannot ‘sit outside’ because it is an integral part of one of the articles.
It can be interpreted in different ways as we are seeing, but that does not hide the fact that it can be overridden by the preamble.
Furthermore, it would appear from the feedback from @Dippenhall that the ‘nothing and everything’ clause is EU initiated.
I have little doubt that the UK will abide by this section, but I have been highlighting that it is not binding despite Dublin believing it is. The EU also agree the wording, this is a joint fudge, not just UK.