Brexit delayed

[Digby]

To be fair to Mark Francois he has brought a new idea to the party.

Is he the one who looks like a fat Penfold?

Ha, yes it is!! Brilliant comparison. Given his outburst on TV, I’d imagine Penfold will not be happy with the comparison.

I feel bad now, for Penfold, I can't imagine anyone feeling bad for Francois

[Digby]

Still no confirmation article 50 is getting delayed, and as I understand for a while now if today (or for a while) we accepted no deal or voted to accept May's deal we wouldn't have time for parliament to vote all the necessary legislation anyway. So either they might as well admit we have to change the time remaining or we have to accept parliament would have to vote on hundreds of items without ever looking at them and certainly without debate or amendment

Maybe they'd get it done with vast use of the sunset clause? But given the process would anyone trust the executive wouldn't slip in god only know what?

The government are still refusing to schedule the required primary legislation for no deal or May's deal and all the statutory instruments required. Whether because they're worried about more defeats or all the amendments they suspect would be attached they're simply not confirming in public

But how the feck is this supposed to happen if we can't even bring legislation before the house never mind pass it?

By any reasonable measure this is gross professional misconduct by the government, there are people building dams in Brazil with more competence than this

[Digby]

May is spinning in circles, and looking less likely to succeed than Don Quixote

Corbyn is criticising May for not listening to others whilst refusing to acknowledge one of his own MPs, probably because he knows full well she's going to tell him the Labour party MPs and members support a 2nd referendum, and Corbyn has been very clear that he doesn't want to listen to anyone who doesn't agree him.

[fivepointer]

Painful to watch. Both leaders are completely out of their depth. Parliament was an embarrassment at times this afternoon.

[Zhivago]

Think we ought to give WTO terms a bit more of focus. So it seems that we can either;

a) Impose 0% tariffs all around, which is what JRM has been advocating. This would indeed reduce prices of imported goods, but at the same time, ruin our economy by giving us a massive trade deficit.

or

b) Impose tariffs all around, which will mean that a lot of imported goods will substantially increase in price.

Obviously both are shit options. We should be staying well away from WTO terms of trade as much as possible.

[Puja]

Am I right in summarising the Brady amendment as basically rejecting the Irish backstop and sending May off to go get "something else" agreed with the EU? "Something else" remains completely unspecified, and the EU have already said, and been quite consistent about, that they're not interested in any deal than doesn't include the backstop or something functionally equivalent.

So, basically, May has managed to unite the Tories and DUP behind her going off to Brussels to get something that we already know we can't get, knowing full well that the whole mission is doomed from the start and it's just going to waste time.

She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

That is pretty much what the amendment says, I believe. The EU have constantly asked what it is we want and we’ve finally got something through parliament so we can tell them. Obviously, it would’ve been just a little bit more useful to have done it a couple of months ago but we’re there now. Let’s see what happens in Brussels/Paris/Berlin/Dublin. Their united front over the border is slightly less united than it was a fortnight ago; though, obviously, a cagillion times more united than the school playground at Westminster.

[Which Tyler]

She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

A] yes
B] no
She's had plenty of tomorrow's, and is yet to deal with 1 single problem

[Puja]

She really is a consummate master of kicking the can down the road and dealing with problems tomorrow, isn't she?

Puja

A] yes
B] no
She's had plenty of tomorrow's, and is yet to deal with 1 single problem

Sorry, meant to say "pushing things away to be tomorrow's problem". Agreed that she has yet to deal with anything, but at some point, you just have to stand back and admire the mastery of the art of procrastination. I've seen 3rd year uni students less adept.

Puja

[Puja]

That is pretty much what the amendment says, I believe. The EU have constantly asked what it is we want and we’ve finally got something through parliament so we can tell them. Obviously, it would’ve been just a little bit more useful to have done it a couple of months ago but we’re there now. Let’s see what happens in Brussels/Paris/Berlin/Dublin. Their united front over the border is slightly less united than it was a fortnight ago; though, obviously, a cagillion times more united than the school playground at Westminster.

The thing that amuses is that we still can't say what it is we want. All we've achieved today is a knowledge that Parliament apparently wants "Not That."

Puja

[Puja]

What I said, but better written: http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01 ... nst-realit

Puja

[Stom]

I would do anything to leave.
Yes I would do anything to leave.
I would do anything to leave.
But I won't do that.
No I won't do that.

[fivepointer]

Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

[morepork]

Shit man, try the view from across the pond if you want useless and unreliable.

[Digby]

Shit man, try the view from across the pond if you want useless and unreliable.

That pretty much sums up Brexit so far, no chance of rainbows and unicorns, no chance even of going back before brexit started to unleash its damage, but don't worry because things could be much worse

[Mellsblue]

Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

[Puja]

Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

[Digby]

We are negotiating, okay it's a style akin to a suicide jumper atop the Shard wearing an explosive vest pointing a gun at our head, our demands make no sense and vary wildly, we go back and forth on our resolution to jump such most onlookers don't think we want to but we're also too scared and embarrassed to climb down, but it is a negotiation. Sort of

[Mellsblue]

Ian Dunt has been superb on Brexit from day one.

His whole column is spot on, but this sums up our current plight perfectly for me -

"But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.

That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.

On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking"

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

[Puja]

I’m not arguing that we’ve handled this anything but abysmally, but isn’t this how the EU have conducted their negotiations? Regional parliaments in Belgium demanded changes to CETA, and were accommodated, after negotiators had agreed the treaty. Are we now saying that parliament must just give a tacit nod to any treaty put before them, rather than scrutinise them and ask for changes if they feel it necessary?

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The difference is that Parliament aren't asking for specific changes that can be agreed or disagreed with, but the removal of something vital to the working of the treaty with unspecified "alternative arrangements". We're not negotiating, we're simply refusing and hoping the problem goes away.

Puja

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

[Digby]

Seems easier to give up Northern Ireland, who to isn't clear

[Puja]

That may be true but the analyst 5P quotes is not demanding that we come up with ideas but that ‘This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner’, ie our negotiating team agreed something but then our legislature had the temerity to ask for a change, exactly as the Wallonian parliament did.
Also, it’s not vital to the working of the treaty. It is solely there if the aim of the treaty - a comprehensive deal - is not achieved.
Finally, UK politicians have given examples of what they would like, eg time limited backstop, unilateral revocation of the backstop, no backstop whatsoever. They have also given the example of Max Fac which was repeatedly poo pooed when the UK suggested it but was suggested by Barnier when looking at ways to avoid a no deal hard border.

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

The problem with a deadline is that what happens if the deadline passes? What happens after that? Same with the unilateral revocation. You can't say that something will disappear without saying what will happen in its place.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

The difference is that the Wallonian parliament wanted something specific and asked for it. We are saying we'd like things different, we're not sure how, and even if you give it to us it's not certain that it'd get through Parliament anyway cause an indicative, non-binding vote passed on the shallowest majority.

Also, what is the point of a backstop with a deadline or that can be unilaterally revoked?

Puja

Mostly agreed but, again, the analyst is saying we are unreliable negotiating partners, ie our legislature haven’t just given the deal the ok. I’m not arguing that parliament have acted correctly (who would), just that the accusation of us being an unreliable negotiating partner is either wrong or, by association, saying the EU was an unreliable negotiating partner for Canada.

The point of a back stop is that if an agreement isn’t reached - by the arbitrary 31st Dec 2020 demanded by the EU - there is something in place to keep the wheels turning. The backstop therefore by definition is temporary, otherwise it wouldn’t be a backstop at all but just the final deal, so why not put a deadline on it. People want a time limited backstop as they think the EU will drag their heels and, though I disagree, it’s not a wholly unreasonable conclusion to reach.
The act of unilateral revocation would include a fairly substantial notice period. Not sure what is wrong with this request. I’m no expert but I don’t know of any international treaty or, for that matter, pretty much any form of contract in which one party can’t unilaterally walk away, albeit with a penalty to pay. Parliament have shown there is nowhere near the numbers for a no deal, which is what walking away from the back stop would be. With this now clear, what is the EU’s reason for not agreeing to it. Even if it were a 1 year notice period that would pretty much get us to the 5 years of negotiations the EU have always told us it takes to sort these kind of things.

The problem with a deadline is that what happens if the deadline passes? What happens after that? Same with the unilateral revocation. You can't say that something will disappear without saying what will happen in its place.

Puja

I agree that a time limit isn’t a good idea but the UK certainly should be allowed to leave unilaterally with a decent notice period.

[fivepointer]

Stephen Crabb, a former Tory minister, says this -
"For what it's worth, a few thoughts on the backstop and why we shouldn’t be tripping over ourselves to bin it. A thread:
Peace in Northern Ireland is the biggest achievement in UK politics in last fifty years. The fruit of enormous effort and sacrifice. Successive UK governments have owned it, paying tribute along the way to the tough men and women who were big enough to compromise and do a deal.
The 1998 Belfast Agreement was always intended to be a living peace agreement with ongoing North-South economic cooperation built in. That happened within a unified framework of the Single Market & CU. The implications of Brexit for this were an afterthought at best in 2016.
In Dec 2017 we agreed to notion of a NI 'backstop’ as insurance policy that our proposed Brexit (Lancaster House) would do nothing to disrupt current patterns of economic & social life across the border.
Was clear then that the backstop would have some teeth. No one left government in protest. Joint Report hailed as a breakthrough moment in negotiations. Widely supported across Conservative party.
The final form of backstop in Withdrawal Agreement reflected a key UK demand that it should be a UK-wide arrangement rather than NI-specific. This was a concession we asked for and got. Backstop would kick in if no alternative arrangements found.
Rather than embrace the fruit of our efforts the backstop immediately slated as a trap concocted by (a) the tricky Irish to further unity aspirations and/or (b) malevolent Commission to keep UK locked into CU indefinitely & stop us doing trade deals.
9 weeks before we are due to leave the EU, the idea that our end-game strategy should now be built around proposal to gut the backstop from WA is just not in the real world & not consistent with “solemn commitment” to the people of NI.
Our reversal on backstop, along with mutterings about revisiting the Belfast Agreement or using No Deal threat to force Irish to compromise, just serves to underline the need for backstop in the first place. Backstop is about locking in something good amidst uncertainty"

On Dunt's comments, he is simply right, isnt he? Can anyone say that what we have witnessed during the last 2 and a half years isnt a terrible stain on our credibility and good standing in the world. we have made ourselves a laughing stock.
I'm embarrassed by whats gone on and angry about the pitiful performance of those in Govt, as well as the shower supposed to be in opposition.