Journalism like that is an absolute disgrace. These MP’s are using their experience and judgement to make a decision that they feel is best for their country. The front page stops short of having them called traitors or the enemy of the people but that is the clear implication. It’s interesting that the picture of Kenneth Clarke is small and as innocuously positioned as his is. Why ? Because he with his years of high office it might just show credibility.
There are of course a group of hard Brexit Tory MP’s with whom I 100% disagree but I wouldn’t have them put up in this way and portrayed as traitors and the enemy. Wrong and misguided certainly but not bullied and vilified by what should be a responsible press.
Agree entirely. Such a pathetic front page from what is meant to be a broadsheet and above a tabloid
Basically we’re now being told we need to let team Brexit get on with it, no questions asked, and accept what happens
I would never vote for Anna Soubry in a million years, but I do like her directness, her general style, and what is probably a decent sense of humour too.
Rees Mogg is also pretty direct, but I would never vote for him in a billion years.
Journalism like that is an absolute disgrace. These MP’s are using their experience and judgement to make a decision that they feel is best for their country. The front page stops short of having them called traitors or the enemy of the people but that is the clear implication. It’s interesting that the picture of Kenneth Clarke is small and as innocuously positioned as his is. Why ? Because he with his years of high office it might just show credibility.
There are of course a group of hard Brexit Tory MP’s with whom I 100% disagree but I wouldn’t have them put up in this way and portrayed as traitors and the enemy. Wrong and misguided certainly but not bullied and vilified by what should be a responsible press.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
Hard to think this was the same paper that broke the expenses scandal.
Now they're actively targeting the few MPs that still have any shred of integrity.
Not so hard to think, when you recall ( 'maybe you didn't know) that they nicked the story from the freelance journalist and now FOI campaigner, Heather Brooke.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
The border question cannot be resolved in the absence of agreement on post Brexit trade relations. That reality is ignored why?
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
The border question cannot be resolved in the absence of agreement on post Brexit trade relations. That reality is ignored why?
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
You Brexit - you fixit!
The UK has been asked to provide papers on the three questions in order to facilitate the discusion of solutions. The papers supplied do not even begin to answer the questions. Nothing on the principles around the Brexit bill, and nothing tangible on the Irish border.
Of course the border solution depends upon the trade relationship. But the only known quantity is that the government have refused to consider remaining in the single market and customs union. Not even in the interim period.
That cannot be laid at the door of the EU27. It is entirely within the gift of May and Davis to deliver.
However in this era of fake news, it comes as no surprise that the most ardent Brexiteers seek to blame shift so as to destract from their failure to deliver anything of merit. Just as they predicted the downfall of the EU and Eurozone which has just upgraded growth forecasts again - this time to 2.5%. In fact some countries such as Latvia, Romania and Ireland are running at 6%
May and Davis are in zugzuang - they choose not to move. But they will be squeezed over the next few months and may not be able to withstand the pressure? Time will tell.
It's not that remainers want the worst outcome, just that a Norway style deal is an obvious solution - and the hard Brexit brigade have failed to come up with an alternative. Certainly not one which is worthy of discussion, let alone within the appetite of the EU27.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
The border question cannot be resolved in the absence of agreement on post Brexit trade relations. That reality is ignored why?
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
Once again food for thought.
The narrative seems to be that the UK voted for brexit, but it wants the EU to fall in to some kind of line that will make it possible.
I understand that, even if it is ignoring reality.
The EU was wending it's own merry way along, but the UK decided to leave, the UK is the driver.
If a partner comes home and says to their other half, who up until then has been living in blissful ignorance, that they want a divorce, surely it is reasonable for the surprised partner to ask 'have you thought this through?'
Yes both partners will want what's best for the children, however visitation rights would be difficult if the instigator wants to take the kids away and live in Australia, even worse if the instigator says they want their ex to fly out to Australia every fortnight to have the kids for the weekend, and to pay for it. Worse still if the instigator then accuses their soon to be ex of a lack of co-operation which will damage the kids.
If the solutions are to be bilateral then when will the UK actually put some solutions forward? I sat and listened to every word of Theresa May's Florence speech live as it happened, it is here:
It does not contain any helpful suggestions for a bilateral solution at all, at best it suggests a timeframe flexibility, shackled alongside more hopes and aspirations, and that is it.
The Tory politicians have all been going on about supporting the Florence speech, but it is lacking substance and as open to interpretation as the brexit vote itself. Indeed when the speech is boiled down, the best anybody can say about it is that it has a soft'ish' tone.
A bit like going home and saying to your partner you want a divorce 'darling'.
The actual money side is incidental isn't it? Who gives a damn if the so called divorce bill is 500billion or 500pence? The value of the amount will fade into memory whilst the human fall out (UK and EU nationals, yes the Border, a diminution of Democracy, a schism in international cooperation) will last for years into the future.
You describe the issue (I think) as stalling and stumbling around what you interestingly describe as the 'ransom payment'. In what way is the EU holding the UK to ransom? There is a) no evidence it is happening, and b) no reason for it to happen. As posted above, if it all goes belly up the EU will have 13% of it's economy disrupted, the UK will have 43% of it's economy disrupted, why would they be at all concerned with conflating the bar bill into a 'ransom'?
Predicting the worst outcome of brexit, which is what you might be accusing a remainer like me of doing, is only half the story isn't it? What is the 'best' outcome of brexit? Seriously I want to know, and I want to know how it will happen. As far as I can tell there is no upside at all.
Remind us what the headlines were when 172, yes I checked, one hundred and seventy two, Labour MP's physically voted that they had no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn in June 2016. He is still there and doing much better than expected. Total non story peddled for the eager gullible.
Just about the only thing that has been agreed so far between the EU27 and the UK is that trade talks can take place when the is significant progress on three items, of which the UK/EU land border between N Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is one.
We agreed it.
It was going to be the mother of all fights, according to David Davis, who was prepared to scrap and tussle over this, throughout the Summer of 2017. In the end - to no-one's surprise whatsoever - Davis exited the first round of talks having given ground on this issue. We had to agree the divorce bill, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the Irish border before we rolled up sleeves and started talking about trade.
We can't now point the finger of blame at the EU for "delaying" trade talks. We *agreed* to sort out the border issue before the trade talks started. And we haven't agreed the border issue. We haven't even worked out what we would *like* to agree. We haven't even worked out how difficult it is to work out.
If we hadn't voted Leave, we wouldn't need to sort it out. But we have. And we do. Or, more specifically, David Davis does. And he needs to let the rest of us know what the plan is, if he wants us to have any confidence whatsoever that we will get the whole kit and caboodle sorted in time. Because, right now, it doesn't look like we have got a prayer.
Remind us what the headlines were when 172, yes I checked, one hundred and seventy two, Labour MP's physically voted that they had no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn in June 2016. He is still there and doing much better than expected. Total non story peddled for the eager gullible.
I forget what your comments were then.
Not sure I understand your point. You are referring, I think to an internal Labour Party leadership contest. That's quite different to an HoC vote, which makes laws and stuff.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
The border question cannot be resolved in the absence of agreement on post Brexit trade relations. That reality is ignored why?
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
Good post dipps.
What I can't get my head around is that the so called divorce bill is not a prescribed formula laid down in existing Eu regulation. How is it that it's down to the Uk to establish some arbitrary principles for them to be shot down as not good enough and we need to double the figure. Dipps would know from his pensions experience that in sale and takeover arrangements involving final salary schemes the actuaries (representing both sides) would have some specific formulae to agree the assets and liabilities and a figure related to a funding deficit which would be factored into the sale/purchase price. This all seems so woolly!! Presumably any basis agreed by Barnier et al between the Eu/uk will become the prescribed basis for any future departees from the eu? I doubt it.
This article is yet another well written take on the theme that has been bumping around on here (admittedly fuelled by me) since the vote. There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
The border question cannot be resolved in the absence of agreement on post Brexit trade relations. That reality is ignored why?
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
Good post dipps.
What I can't get my head around is that the so called divorce bill is not a prescribed formula laid down in existing Eu regulation. How is it that it's down to the Uk to establish some arbitrary principles for them to be shot down as not good enough and we need to double the figure. Dipps would know from his pensions experience that in sale and takeover arrangements involving final salary schemes the actuaries (representing both sides) would have some specific formulae to agree the assets and liabilities and a figure related to a funding deficit which would be factored into the sale/purchase price. This all seems so woolly!! Presumably any basis agreed by Barnier et al between the Eu/uk will become the prescribed basis for any future departees from the eu? I doubt it.
As a matter of interest, why would you expect the EU to have expended time and resources on developing a regulation containing the formula for calculating an exit settlement?
I'd hazard a guess that what would be said is that Article 50 provides a framework for negotiation, but every negotiation is, to misquote a famous Belgian lady of this parish, unique.
The EU have put forward, many moons ago, their preferred methodology for calculating the financial part of any exit settlement (rather than any officially sanctioned bill), it seems clear that the "sufficient progress" is coming to an agreed methodology, rather than a final amount.
On the other hand the UK seems fixated upon the question of both the amount and trying to tie any payments to a future trade deal, which is causing the poor old horse a bit of confusion, what with that cart being in his way. It's almost as if David Davis was trying an underhand method of starting trade talks without the form of departure being agreed, in breach if the agreed sequencing.
So both sides are trying to negotiate different things, at a tangent from the other. There is a clear feeling in the EU that the UK would like nothing more than to tie negotiations up in minutiae, and seek to bamboozle the EU side to gain an advantage (almost as if someone had given David Davis a copy of NLP for Dummies).
Is this 'preferred methodology' in the public domain? I would like to see it and understand some of the base elements.
Interesting ONS stats on the front page of the times showing Eu workers in the uk at a higher level now than pre referendum. I am not displeased with that personally albeit I do feel longer term action is required to have some controls in place.
Not wishing to be left behind in the rush to promote the whole mutiny/traitor narrative the Mail weighs in this morning. Ironically at least some of these "rebels" that are in "contempt of democracy" represent Remain voting constituencies.
Obviously we all read articles like this below through the prism of our own existing stance but he does raise some interesting points, whether you agree with them or not.
"...Mr Davis will be asking British legislators to nod through a document that might as well be made up of blank pages and question marks.
When it comes to choosing our nation’s future, the detail matters. Being fobbed off with a “heads of agreement” will not do. So Members of Parliament must hold firm and reject the government’s tactics. They must make it clear that it would be a profound breach of democracy for MPs to endorse a blueprint for Britain’s future which will be made up of little more than white noise.
As Parliament begins to pick apart the government’s legislative programme for Brexit, Members of Parliament must set aside their party ties, put country first, and be clear that they will not accept anything other than a meaningful vote on a detailed proposal about Britain’s future outside the EU. The government’s legislative contortions will continue, but it must be given nowhere else to turn."
Is this 'preferred methodology' in the public domain? I would like to see it and understand some of the base elements.
Interesting ONS stats on the front page of the times showing Eu workers in the uk at a higher level now than pre referendum. I am not displeased with that personally albeit I do feel longer term action is required to have some controls in place.
Anyone got a link to the actual stats? That seems to go against all recent reports on the matter.
Is this 'preferred methodology' in the public domain? I would like to see it and understand some of the base elements.
Interesting ONS stats on the front page of the times showing Eu workers in the uk at a higher level now than pre referendum. I am not displeased with that personally albeit I do feel longer term action is required to have some controls in place.
I have been dipping in and out of the Parliamentary debate over the last couple of days and to my surprise many of the politicians have been impressive. Maybe because the issue is less party political and more, as many keep repeating, the most important UK issue since the war. Yesterday my own MP Heidi Alexander proposed two amendments that would have led to compromise (EEA) and it was a really well articulated effort to move things on. Many others have given speeches that are well put, although Bill Cash and some others have drifted off piste (the glorious war dead etc) but in the main the debate has been impressive. I usually put on BBC Parliament in the afternoon because trying to follow proceedings is a guarantee of a good nap, but the current level of debate is very different.
I have been dipping in and out of the Parliamentary debate over the last couple of days and to my surprise many of the politicians have been impressive. Maybe because the issue is less party political and more, as many keep repeating, the most important UK issue since the war. Yesterday my own MP Heidi Alexander proposed two amendments that would have led to compromise (EEA) and it was a really well articulated effort to move things on. Many others have given speeches that are well put, although Bill Cash and some others have drifted off piste (the glorious war dead etc) but in the main the debate has been impressive. I usually put on BBC Parliament in the afternoon because trying to follow proceedings is a guarantee of a good nap, but the current level of debate is very different.
I have been dipping in and out of the Parliamentary debate over the last couple of days and to my surprise many of the politicians have been impressive. Maybe because the issue is less party political and more, as many keep repeating, the most important UK issue since the war. Yesterday my own MP Heidi Alexander proposed two amendments that would have led to compromise (EEA) and it was a really well articulated effort to move things on. Many others have given speeches that are well put, although Bill Cash and some others have drifted off piste (the glorious war dead etc) but in the main the debate has been impressive. I usually put on BBC Parliament in the afternoon because trying to follow proceedings is a guarantee of a good nap, but the current level of debate is very different.
Thanks @Imissthepeanutman any side intent on effective settlement of an agreement would agree the principles and then argue over the detail.
The UK have tried to put on the agenda agreement on the principles which will determine how the UKs exit bill is calculated. That would allow progress to be made, with the number being calculated as and when. The EU will not agree that, it will cramp their ability to extort the maximum figure.
The blame game seems of more interest than resolving the problem. Make excuses, and justify the EU's position but please recognise the EU modus operandi. Make preconditions to discussing an agenda item, make them impossible to meet and blame lack of progress on the other side.
Just saying the problems to be resolved as a result of Brexit are for the UK to fix is crass and simply underscores the impression that point scoring and winning the blame game is a higher priority than fixing the problem. If I broke your window and you told me to fix it but you can't use a ladder to get to it who do you blame for the draught blowing through the hole?
I seriously doubt that “the divorce settlement “ is going to cause too many problems. The 27 will have a figure and so will the British government. We know now that the final figure will nestle nicely somewhere in between. Both sides will be able to spin the outcome. The 27 will say it’s a fair settlement and The UK will be able to say we drove a hard bargain. Neither side will be particularly bothered by any of the spin by the other. It’s probably an easy win for both parties.
Thanks @Imissthepeanutman any side intent on effective settlement of an agreement would agree the principles and then argue over the detail.
The UK have tried to put on the agenda agreement on the principles which will determine how the UKs exit bill is calculated. That would allow progress to be made, with the number being calculated as and when. The EU will not agree that, it will cramp their ability to extort the maximum figure.
The blame game seems of more interest than resolving the problem. Make excuses, and justify the EU's position but please recognise the EU modus operandi. Make preconditions to discussing an agenda item, make them impossible to meet and blame lack of progress on the other side.
Just saying the problems to be resolved as a result of Brexit are for the UK to fix is crass and simply underscores the impression that point scoring and winning the blame game is a higher priority than fixing the problem. If I broke your window and you told me to fix it but you can't use a ladder to get to it who do you blame for the draught blowing through the hole?
Sorry, if you have broken my window, I will still blame you for any draught...
I'm nice like that.
And, in fairness, I may not be willing to let you use my ladder because, in these litigious times, I could find myself liable should you injure yourself (even if you were not using the ladder safely).
If you take a look at the EU position papers on the financial settlement, it is clear that they had put forward their proposals for the principles/methodology to determine the amount in May and June of this year.
I've looked on the UK's Article 50 and negotiations with the EU page (publication scheme): https://gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu. Unlike the EU, the UK has not published any position papers on what it views as the principles and, reading David Davis' statements and closing remarks, in the Speeches and Statements section, it seems unlikely that there is any position paper on the principles of the financial settlement. What the UK has been doing, and, until the most recent meetings, David Davis seemed remarkably keen to stress, was seeking to pick apart the EU principles and concentrate on (clearly important) technical questions, rather than putting forward alternative proposals.
So I am not sure that I would agree that the UK have, actually, tried to put on the agenda agreement on how the exit bill is calculated - but there has definitely been an attempt to blur the lines between the exit bill and payments, if any, associated with the future relationship.
Thanks @Imissthepeanutman any side intent on effective settlement of an agreement would agree the principles and then argue over the detail.
The UK have tried to put on the agenda agreement on the principles which will determine how the UKs exit bill is calculated. That would allow progress to be made, with the number being calculated as and when. The EU will not agree that, it will cramp their ability to extort the maximum figure.
The blame game seems of more interest than resolving the problem. Make excuses, and justify the EU's position but please recognise the EU modus operandi. Make preconditions to discussing an agenda item, make them impossible to meet and blame lack of progress on the other side.
Just saying the problems to be resolved as a result of Brexit are for the UK to fix is crass and simply underscores the impression that point scoring and winning the blame game is a higher priority than fixing the problem. If I broke your window and you told me to fix it but you can't use a ladder to get to it who do you blame for the draught blowing through the hole?
Sorry, if you have broken my window, I will still blame you for any draught...
I'm nice like that.
And, in fairness, I may not be willing to let you use my ladder because, in these litigious times, I could find myself liable should you injure yourself (even if you were not using the ladder safely).
If you take a look at the EU position papers on the financial settlement, it is clear that they had put forward their proposals for the principles/methodology to determine the amount in May and June of this year.
I've looked on the UK's Article 50 and negotiations with the EU page (publication scheme): https://gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu. Unlike the EU, the UK has not published any position papers on what it views as the principles and, reading David Davis' statements and closing remarks, in the Speeches and Statements section, it seems unlikely that there is any position paper on the principles of the financial settlement. What the UK has been doing, and, until the most recent meetings, David Davis seemed remarkably keen to stress, was seeking to pick apart the EU principles and concentrate on (clearly important) technical questions, rather than putting forward alternative proposals.
So I am not sure that I would agree that the UK have, actually, tried to put on the agenda agreement on how the exit bill is calculated - but there has definitely been an attempt to blur the lines between the exit bill and payments, if any, associated with the future relationship.
Not interested in fixing the window, happier being able to bitch about the draught and win the blame game.
May gave all 27 states notice that 80bn Euro would secure an exit agreement, no pretence it's a scientific or legally accountable amount and no methodology.
The EU uses the term "methodology" as opposed to principles,legal obligations or duties, since none exist. The EU has tried to pretend from day 1 that there was an obligation on the UK to pay an exit bill, rather than admit the fact that it was a matter of mutual agreement under the Article 50 agreement. This was to ensure they didn't have to enter into an holistic Article 50 agreement, but artificially separate the issues.
The UK is willing to horse trade, which is what will eventually happen, but you can't horse trade if the other side refuses to let you see their horse and demands you first tell them how much you will pay for it.
Like I said - set out pre-conditions and artificial barriers to talks that are merely delaying tactics and blame the other side for lack of progress.
Comments
Basically we’re now being told we need to let team Brexit get on with it, no questions asked, and accept what happens
Now they're actively targeting the few MPs that still have any shred of integrity.
Rees Mogg is also pretty direct, but I would never vote for him in a billion years.
where does that exist?
I think it reflects a growing view of the future for the border in Ireland being a bigger stumbling block than most had imagined.
https://irishtimes.com/opinion/boris-johnson-might-find-his-irish-cake-hard-to-digest-1.3291764
There have been efforts by @stonemuse and @Dippenhall to try to suggest a solution, and plenty of suggestions by yours truly, but we keep bumping up against what seems to be the stark reality that no border at all means no brexit at all, or any border will be a hard border which will take billions to manage, and risk a political reaction that speaks to the hundreds of years of what amounts to colonial rule in Ireland.
I imagine deep down many leavers say to themselves something along the lines of 'why can't the Irish accept the British vote and make it easy for us and have no violent or unfortunate reaction at all? We (the vast vast vast majority of the British) really don't mean any harm or hold any ill will towards the Irish' Please let it be a sunny and happy outcome.
A decent aspiration, but there are no practical solutions that will lead to that outcome and still allow brexit. The ultimate solution to allow brexit will be a hard border, what other outcome can there possibly be?
It make me laugh that person after person, individuals, politicians, commentators alike all interpret the meaning of the brexit vote in their own way, and who can challenge that? brexit means sovereignty, brexit means free trade with the world, brexit means no immigration brexit means and so on.
I am guilty of this. I have decided that brexit really and truly at heart means border control above and beyond anything else. Not only do I dislike it, but simply can't see how it is possible. To me it is like saying brexit means foreigners can't breathe our air, however windy it is, and we don't want to breathe theirs...so we demand that politicians create an air funnelling system to fulfil our wishes.
Could it be because it’s the EU that refuses to discuss trade until it knows what it is able to extract as a ransom payment. The border question is so vital that the EU puts more store in settling the more important matter of money.
Blame the Brexit decision and lay no blame at the feet of the EU which it seems can sit behind its refusal to discuss trade as a legitimate stance regardless of the consequences.
No responsibility it seems on the EU to engage in establishing a solution as a priority. No the EU is immune, it didn’t ask for Brexit so has no responsibility for engaging in solutions. Same goes for failure to sort out status of nationals on both sides, money must be sorted before sorting out people’s lives.
Remainers seem to prefer predicting the worst outcome of Brexit as if it’s what anyone wants and regard the EU is a helpless bystander, a poor victim of Brexit unable to to play any constructive role in what are necessarily bilateral solutions.
The UK has been asked to provide papers on the three questions in order to facilitate the discusion of solutions. The papers supplied do not even begin to answer the questions. Nothing on the principles around the Brexit bill, and nothing tangible on the Irish border.
Of course the border solution depends upon the trade relationship. But the only known quantity is that the government have refused to consider remaining in the single market and customs union. Not even in the interim period.
That cannot be laid at the door of the EU27. It is entirely within the gift of May and Davis to deliver.
However in this era of fake news, it comes as no surprise that the most ardent Brexiteers seek to blame shift so as to destract from their failure to deliver anything of merit. Just as they predicted the downfall of the EU and Eurozone which has just upgraded growth forecasts again - this time to 2.5%. In fact some countries such as Latvia, Romania and Ireland are running at 6%
May and Davis are in zugzuang - they choose not to move. But they will be squeezed over the next few months and may not be able to withstand the pressure? Time will tell.
It's not that remainers want the worst outcome, just that a Norway style deal is an obvious solution - and the hard Brexit brigade have failed to come up with an alternative. Certainly not one which is worthy of discussion, let alone within the appetite of the EU27.
The narrative seems to be that the UK voted for brexit, but it wants the EU to fall in to some kind of line that will make it possible.
I understand that, even if it is ignoring reality.
The EU was wending it's own merry way along, but the UK decided to leave, the UK is the driver.
If a partner comes home and says to their other half, who up until then has been living in blissful ignorance, that they want a divorce, surely it is reasonable for the surprised partner to ask 'have you thought this through?'
Yes both partners will want what's best for the children, however visitation rights would be difficult if the instigator wants to take the kids away and live in Australia, even worse if the instigator says they want their ex to fly out to Australia every fortnight to have the kids for the weekend, and to pay for it. Worse still if the instigator then accuses their soon to be ex of a lack of co-operation which will damage the kids.
If the solutions are to be bilateral then when will the UK actually put some solutions forward? I sat and listened to every word of Theresa May's Florence speech live as it happened, it is here:
It does not contain any helpful suggestions for a bilateral solution at all, at best it suggests a timeframe flexibility, shackled alongside more hopes and aspirations, and that is it.
The Tory politicians have all been going on about supporting the Florence speech, but it is lacking substance and as open to interpretation as the brexit vote itself. Indeed when the speech is boiled down, the best anybody can say about it is that it has a soft'ish' tone.
A bit like going home and saying to your partner you want a divorce 'darling'.
The actual money side is incidental isn't it? Who gives a damn if the so called divorce bill is 500billion or 500pence? The value of the amount will fade into memory whilst the human fall out (UK and EU nationals, yes the Border, a diminution of Democracy, a schism in international cooperation) will last for years into the future.
You describe the issue (I think) as stalling and stumbling around what you interestingly describe as the 'ransom payment'. In what way is the EU holding the UK to ransom? There is a) no evidence it is happening, and b) no reason for it to happen. As posted above, if it all goes belly up the EU will have 13% of it's economy disrupted, the UK will have 43% of it's economy disrupted, why would they be at all concerned with conflating the bar bill into a 'ransom'?
Predicting the worst outcome of brexit, which is what you might be accusing a remainer like me of doing, is only half the story isn't it? What is the 'best' outcome of brexit? Seriously I want to know, and I want to know how it will happen. As far as I can tell there is no upside at all.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-theresa-may-is-wrong-to-be-rigid-on-eu-departure-date-a3691651.html
If memory serves me correctly @PolzeathNick said he was in derivatives and argued the case for Brexit
Would be interested to hear his views on this
Total non story peddled for the eager gullible.
I forget what your comments were then.
We agreed it.
It was going to be the mother of all fights, according to David Davis, who was prepared to scrap and tussle over this, throughout the Summer of 2017. In the end - to no-one's surprise whatsoever - Davis exited the first round of talks having given ground on this issue. We had to agree the divorce bill, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the Irish border before we rolled up sleeves and started talking about trade.
We can't now point the finger of blame at the EU for "delaying" trade talks. We *agreed* to sort out the border issue before the trade talks started. And we haven't agreed the border issue. We haven't even worked out what we would *like* to agree. We haven't even worked out how difficult it is to work out.
If we hadn't voted Leave, we wouldn't need to sort it out. But we have. And we do. Or, more specifically, David Davis does. And he needs to let the rest of us know what the plan is, if he wants us to have any confidence whatsoever that we will get the whole kit and caboodle sorted in time. Because, right now, it doesn't look like we have got a prayer.
What I can't get my head around is that the so called divorce bill is not a prescribed formula laid down in existing Eu regulation. How is it that it's down to the Uk to establish some arbitrary principles for them to be shot down as not good enough and we need to double the figure. Dipps would know from his pensions experience that in sale and takeover arrangements involving final salary schemes the actuaries (representing both sides) would have some specific formulae to agree the assets and liabilities and a figure related to a funding deficit which would be factored into the sale/purchase price. This all seems so woolly!! Presumably any basis agreed by Barnier et al between the Eu/uk will become the prescribed basis for any future departees from the eu? I doubt it.
I'd hazard a guess that what would be said is that Article 50 provides a framework for negotiation, but every negotiation is, to misquote a famous Belgian lady of this parish, unique.
The EU have put forward, many moons ago, their preferred methodology for calculating the financial part of any exit settlement (rather than any officially sanctioned bill), it seems clear that the "sufficient progress" is coming to an agreed methodology, rather than a final amount.
On the other hand the UK seems fixated upon the question of both the amount and trying to tie any payments to a future trade deal, which is causing the poor old horse a bit of confusion, what with that cart being in his way. It's almost as if David Davis was trying an underhand method of starting trade talks without the form of departure being agreed, in breach if the agreed sequencing.
So both sides are trying to negotiate different things, at a tangent from the other. There is a clear feeling in the EU that the UK would like nothing more than to tie negotiations up in minutiae, and seek to bamboozle the EU side to gain an advantage (almost as if someone had given David Davis a copy of NLP for Dummies).
Time is not on anyone's side.
Interesting ONS stats on the front page of the times showing Eu workers in the uk at a higher level now than pre referendum. I am not displeased with that personally albeit I do feel longer term action is required to have some controls in place.
Not wishing to be left behind in the rush to promote the whole mutiny/traitor narrative the Mail weighs in this morning. Ironically at least some of these "rebels" that are in "contempt of democracy" represent Remain voting constituencies.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/mps-deserve-vote-final-plan-brexit-not-vague-sketch/
"...Mr Davis will be asking British legislators to nod through a document that might as well be made up of blank pages and question marks.
When it comes to choosing our nation’s future, the detail matters. Being fobbed off with a “heads of agreement” will not do. So Members of Parliament must hold firm and reject the government’s tactics. They must make it clear that it would be a profound breach of democracy for MPs to endorse a blueprint for Britain’s future which will be made up of little more than white noise.
As Parliament begins to pick apart the government’s legislative programme for Brexit, Members of Parliament must set aside their party ties, put country first, and be clear that they will not accept anything other than a meaningful vote on a detailed proposal about Britain’s future outside the EU. The government’s legislative contortions will continue, but it must be given nowhere else to turn."
The full list of EU published papers can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/brexit-negotiations/negotiating-documents-article-50-negotiations-united-kingdom_en?field_publication_type_tid_i18n=All&field_core_tags_tid_i18n=351.
Yesterday my own MP Heidi Alexander proposed two amendments that would have led to compromise (EEA) and it was a really well articulated effort to move things on. Many others have given speeches that are well put, although Bill Cash and some others have drifted off piste (the glorious war dead etc) but in the main the debate has been impressive.
I usually put on BBC Parliament in the afternoon because trying to follow proceedings is a guarantee of a good nap, but the current level of debate is very different.
The UK have tried to put on the agenda agreement on the principles which will determine how the UKs exit bill is calculated. That would allow progress to be made, with the number being calculated as and when. The EU will not agree that, it will cramp their ability to extort the maximum figure.
The blame game seems of more interest than resolving the problem. Make excuses, and justify the EU's position but please recognise the EU modus operandi. Make preconditions to discussing an agenda item, make them impossible to meet and blame lack of progress on the other side.
Just saying the problems to be resolved as a result of Brexit are for the UK to fix is crass and simply underscores the impression that point scoring and winning the blame game is a higher priority than fixing the problem. If I broke your window and you told me to fix it but you can't use a ladder to get to it who do you blame for the draught blowing through the hole?
I'm nice like that.
And, in fairness, I may not be willing to let you use my ladder because, in these litigious times, I could find myself liable should you injure yourself (even if you were not using the ladder safely).
If you take a look at the EU position papers on the financial settlement, it is clear that they had put forward their proposals for the principles/methodology to determine the amount in May and June of this year.
I've looked on the UK's Article 50 and negotiations with the EU page (publication scheme): https://gov.uk/government/collections/article-50-and-negotiations-with-the-eu. Unlike the EU, the UK has not published any position papers on what it views as the principles and, reading David Davis' statements and closing remarks, in the Speeches and Statements section, it seems unlikely that there is any position paper on the principles of the financial settlement. What the UK has been doing, and, until the most recent meetings, David Davis seemed remarkably keen to stress, was seeking to pick apart the EU principles and concentrate on (clearly important) technical questions, rather than putting forward alternative proposals.
So I am not sure that I would agree that the UK have, actually, tried to put on the agenda agreement on how the exit bill is calculated - but there has definitely been an attempt to blur the lines between the exit bill and payments, if any, associated with the future relationship.
May gave all 27 states notice that 80bn Euro would secure an exit agreement, no pretence it's a scientific or legally accountable amount and no methodology.
The EU uses the term "methodology" as opposed to principles,legal obligations or duties, since none exist. The EU has tried to pretend from day 1 that there was an obligation on the UK to pay an exit bill, rather than admit the fact that it was a matter of mutual agreement under the Article 50 agreement. This was to ensure they didn't have to enter into an holistic Article 50 agreement, but artificially separate the issues.
The UK is willing to horse trade, which is what will eventually happen, but you can't horse trade if the other side refuses to let you see their horse and demands you first tell them how much you will pay for it.
Like I said - set out pre-conditions and artificial barriers to talks that are merely delaying tactics and blame the other side for lack of progress.