Getting brexit done!

[Facecloth]

16 hours ago, Lionator said:

Will those moaning about unelected EU bureaucrats be complaining about Zac Goldsmith and Nicky Morgan being in the cabinet?

I'm complaining about Goldsmith on the basis he's done next to **** all in british politics, lost all but one of the elections he's stood for. But when Daddy is a billionaire he can buy your way into these positions.

[The Guvnor]

19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

They got 45% of the vote, according to the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results/scotland

 

I certainly agree that they're a long way from getting independence sewn up, though.

 

But IF there's an adverse impact from the Brexit outcome in Dec. 2020, and IF they then win a majority in the Scottish elections in 2021......their best chance might come in 2021.

Of course, the UK Govt might just refuse to authorise a referendum.....where that would lead, I don't know, but possibly to an awful lot of strife.

Ian Blackfords head exploding.

[davieG]

 

The party is generally regarded to be split between "moderate" and "far-right" wings, the latter of which seem to be gaining ground, shading over into  racist nationalism and anti-Semitism.

The party's lead candidates are a study in opposites. Representing the "far-right" faction is 76-year-old Alexander Gauland, a lawyer and journalist who was a member of Merkel's conservative CDU for 40 years. The "moderate" faction is personified by 38-year-old economist Alice Weidel, who lives at least part-time in Switzerland with her female partner, who comes from Sri Lanka, and two children.

https://www.dw.com/en/afd-what-you-need-to-know-about-germanys-far-right-party/a-37208199

 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

More news on "getting Brexit done"...... 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/27/eu-chief-questions-feasibility-of-boris-johnson-brexit-talks-time-limit

 

"A leaked EU document seen by the Guardian lays out the key areas of cooperation which will be the subject of negotiation once the withdrawal agreement is ratified and the UK has withdrawn from the bloc at the end of January.

According to the paper, EU diplomats representing the member states will on 10 January look at the issues involved in maintaining a free flow of data after Brexit and allowing the UK’s financial services sector to continue to operate within the EU through a decision on the “adequacy” of UK regulation in those two areas.Later in that week, the internal discussions will move on to trade in goods and services and the arrangements for intellectual property and public procurement. On 14 January, diplomats will scope out their position on fisheries and the need for a level playing field under which the UK will need to sign up to EU fiscal, environmental and social standards.Further seminars are planned on the governance of any agreement to allow dispute resolution, the arrangements in haulage and aviation, security, foreign policy, space, energy, mobility of citizens travelling between the UK and the EU, and future British involvement in the EU’s programmes, including in higher education."

 

But, apart from that, what will the Romans ever do for us....? 

 

Meanwhile...... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7830177/Brussels-hints-demand-Brexit-EXTENSION-agree-UK-trade-deal-leaves-EU.html

 

"Brussels hinted today that it could demand its own Brextension next year after the top EU bureaucrat questioned whether a trade deal could be done by next December. Boris Johnson is set to enshrine in British law the end of the transition period in a year's time, insisting a basic free commerce agreement can be in place. But European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen has expressed 'serious concern' over whether 11 months after January's completion of Brexit is long enough.

It comes as both sides limber up for what could be brutal negotiations over free trade that will be the main focus of the UK's foreign policy in 2020".

 

......and: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1221505/brexit-news-uk-eu-deal-latest-data-transition-period-boris-johnson

 

"Now a top Brussels official has warned a deal on data might not be met before the end of the transition period in just under a year. Wojciech Wiewiorowski, the EU’s new data protection supervisor, has warned the UK is “13th in the row” of countries that were negotiating data deals with Brussels. He told the Financial Times allowing Britain to jump the queue just to meet the transition period deadline “would be a little bit unfair towards those that have already prepared themselves for that process”.

[oxford blue]

The EU said they would not re-negotiate May's deal but Johnson insisted it needed to be done by 31 Oct. Unsurprisingly, the EU are saying a trade deal cannot be agreed before 31 December 2020. Johnson insists it must be; ne needs to do it for electoral reasons and to move on to focus on domestic issues.  Both sides need a deal and to suggest the UK  is 13th in in row of countries  with no priority is ludicrous - unsurprisingly this was told to the FT, a strongly remain newspaper.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, oxford blue said:

The EU said they would not re-negotiate May's deal but Johnson insisted it needed to be done by 31 Oct. Unsurprisingly, the EU are saying a trade deal cannot be agreed before 31 December 2020. Johnson insists it must be; ne needs to do it for electoral reasons and to move on to focus on domestic issues.  Both sides need a deal and to suggest the UK  is 13th in in row of countries  with no priority is ludicrous - unsurprisingly this was told to the FT, a strongly remain newspaper.

 

Let's see how much "insisting" Johnson did and how much "renegotiating" the EU did.....

 

- The EU insisted that our terms of withdrawal should be agreed before any trade deal/future relationship was negotiated. The UK wanted to negotiate them alongside each other, but had to capitulate.

 

- In particular, the EU wanted 3 issues settled first, largely because they represented vulnerabilities for the EU & potential negotiating leverage for the UK:

1. They wanted us to pay a big fat divorce settlement;

2. They wanted terms to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK & UK citizens in the EU (4.5m EU citizens v. 1.5m UK citizens, from memory);

3. They wanted terms to avoid a hard border in the island of Ireland;

 

1. Then Foreign Secretary, Johnson, said that the EU "could whistle for" that divorce settlement: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40571123

Under the Withdrawal Agreement to be passed on 31st Jan, the UK commits to paying that big fat divorce settlement.

 

2. The WA also includes terms to protect the rights of EU/UK citizens (though the UK process seems chaotic with a lot of EU citizens who are longstanding UK residents denied permanent rights - risking the European Parliament voting the deal down or another Windrush scandal of settled EU citizens & UK taxpayers with British children being denied their rights here).

 

3. The deal on Ireland that Johnson "renegotiated" was offered to May 2 years earlier, but she backed down from accepting it as she didn't want to shaft her DUP allies and wanted to maintain UK unity while avoiding a hard land border:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/juncker-and-may-fail-to-reach-brexit-deal-amid-dup-doubts-over-irish-border

Johnson was happy to shaft his allies in pursuit of a Brexit deal that would win him an election & get him 5 years unfettered power. He didn't care about protecting UK unity & signed up for the deal that May had rejected, namely N. Ireland to stay in the EU Customs Union (meaning no border checks with the Irish Republic but lots more between N. Ireland & GB) & to stay aligned with much of the Single Market. Naturally, the EU & Republic of Ireland are happy with this outcome (which they'd offered in the first place) - and Ulster Unionists are very unhappy, knowing that it will damage GB-NI trade, not NI-RoI trade & make early Irish reunification much likelier. That deal is effectively permanent, unless the Unionists can get an overall majority at Stormont. They didn't have one before & are increasingly less likely to get one as the Catholic/Nationalist community is overtaking the Protestant/Unionist community demographically (slight simplification). This deal for N. Ireland to remain in many facets of the EU will also be ammunition for Scotland's fight for independence & its own EU deal/membership.

 

The WA is a great deal for the EU. They got their priorities dealt with first - and got almost everything they could have hoped for. Now that those issues of high risk to the EU are settled, they'll be in an even stronger negotiating position than before. 

 

Of course, they'll want a deal on the future EU-UK relationship - and some sort of deal might well be done. But the EU needs that deal less than the UK does. They do about 10% of their trade with us, whereas we do about 50% of ours with them. No Deal or a very limited deal will damage both parties, but will damage the UK a lot more than the EU. And, having settled 3 high-risk issues, it has no incentive to be too generous, particularly given the risk of encouraging other EU nations to want out or to quibble about terms and payment for being in the EU, Single Market etc.

 

There probably are deals that could be done by December: one whereby the UK abided by most EU regulations/standards & committed to EU labour/environment/consumer standards (but Boris specifically watered that down in his deal - he wants the flexibility to diverge big-time)....or a very limited deal, allowing the UK to diverge on standards (so as to shaft its people in the interests of global capital) in exchange for high tariffs, strict trade quotas & masses of regulatory barriers.....and that's just looking at trade in goods. Services, particularly financial services, are massively important to the UK - and that's something that the EU is already saying may have to wait until after December, allowing them to pick off parts of the sector that need cheap, easy access to the SM.

EU-UK trade will be very high friction if the UK wants major divergence & a quick deal, which seems to be the case.

 

The thing about "13th in line" for a data deal might well be posturing, though you can see the logic to it, if other non-EU countries are already negotiating such deals. I'm sure there'll be some compromise on both sides. But, as with the WA, most of the compromise will have to be done by the weaker party, namely the UK.....and after passing the WA & leaving the EU, the UK's position will be even weaker than it was during the first phase.

 

Johnson is a magnificent conman, I have to admit. He's conned you into believing he's "insisted" on a great deal, when really the UK has had its pants down & his deal is a blend of capitulation, treachery towards allies & reheated bits of May's deal (including an EU offer that she rejected). He's conned the nation into giving him 5 years of unfettered power (though Corbyn & others bear much blame for that). I expect he'll launch a few high-profile projects in the next year, "moving on" from Brexit - and maybe he'll con you and many others again. But if, in 1-2 years, we end up with a distant, high-friction EU-UK relationship, a declining economy, cuts in rights & standards.....and a major fall in tax revenues to fund "domestic issues".....even the magnificent conman won't be able to pull the wool over many people's eyes (or will he? he'll have options - blatant lies, blaming of foreigners, the scrounging poor, militant workers demanding rights etc.). 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

I shouldn't have wasted my time on that dissertation/diatribe, should I? 

 

I should just rely on the words of The Piranhas. They're able to sum it up more succinctly....

 

"You have to laugh or else you'd cry; you have to live or else you'd die"....."heading for a grotty time", indeed! 

 

 

[LiberalFox]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I shouldn't have wasted my time on that dissertation/diatribe, should I? 

 

I should just rely on the words of The Piranhas. They're able to sum it up more succinctly....

 

"You have to laugh or else you'd cry; you have to live or else you'd die"....."heading for a grotty time", indeed! 

 

 

Probably not. I feel like it sums up politics that I'd love to have John Major as PM again.

[Milo]

20 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Probably not. I feel like it sums up politics that I'd love to have John Major as PM again.

Really? 
 

That surprises me, tbh. Decent chap but poor and ineffective PM imo. 
 

Did the Irish thing, but presided over an EU headache/balls up and created an environment where sexual deviants, crooks and miscreants tore their party apart to a level of self implosion rarely seen before or since (well, not until quite recently, I suppose)! 
 

Unelected, too. 

[LiberalFox]

6 minutes ago, Milo said:

Really? 
 

That surprises me, tbh. Decent chap but poor and ineffective PM imo. 
 

Did the Irish thing, but presided over an EU headache/balls up and created an environment where sexual deviants, crooks and miscreants tore their party apart to a level of self implosion rarely seen before or since (well, not until quite recently, I suppose)! 
 

Unelected, too. 

Unelected? Who won in 1992 then?

 

Don't think he was amazing or anything but maybe that's what appeals. 

Edited 27 December 2019 by LiberalFox

[Dr The Singh]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Unelected? Who won in 1992 then?

 

Don't think he was amazing or anything but maybe that's what appeals. 

Just for shagging Edwina Currie made him a agreat MP, that guy was well pushing above his weight and for that, I applaud him

[Milo]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Unelected? Who won in 1992 then?

 

Don't think he was amazing or anything but maybe that's what appeals. 

You might be right there.
 

In my defence, I was out of the country for a few years around that time...so may have missed it 

 

I’d rather have a Third Way/pre-mad Blair. 
 

When are the Lib Dem’s going to rise up and rescue us from these two appalling choices (No choice at all) that we currently have? 

[LiberalFox]

1 minute ago, Milo said:

You might be right there.
 

In my defence, I was out of the country for a few years around that time...so may have missed it 

 

I’d rather have a Third Way/pre-mad Blair. 
 

When are the Lib Dem’s going to rise up and rescue us from these two appalling choices (No choice at all) that we currently have? 

Probably 15-20 years from now if things are played right. Electoral system makes it hard to gain ground quickly.

[The Horse's Mouth]

with christmas done got me thinking, maybe the NHS being gutted isnt so bad after all. Rather than getting socks for christmas, you get that brand new lung you've needed all year

[oxford blue]

On 27/12/2019 at 21:25, Alf Bentley said:

- In particular, the EU wanted 3 issues settled first, largely because they represented vulnerabilities for the EU & potential negotiating leverage for the UK:

1. They wanted us to pay a big fat divorce settlement;

2. They wanted terms to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK & UK citizens in the EU (4.5m EU citizens v. 1.5m UK citizens, from memory);

3. They wanted terms to avoid a hard border in the island of Ireland;

1. The link you posted shows Johnson talking about whistling for an extortionate divorce settlement, not that there would not be one, The Austrian Chancellor was saying it should be £60bn euros.

2. The legislation regarding settled status (indefinite leave to remain) came into effect in March 2019 ie well before the first withdrawal bill. Even without no deal, it would remain law and by 31 Oct around 2 million had settled or pre-settled status, with other applications still to be processed.

3. The question of Irish unity is an interesting.one. Would Dublin actually want a united Ireland, with a significant proportion of the population not wanting to be part of the country? With Northern Ireland part of the UK, the split communities remain a British problem.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, oxford blue said:

1. The link you posted shows Johnson talking about whistling for an extortionate divorce settlement, not that there would not be one, The Austrian Chancellor was saying it should be £60bn euros.

2. The legislation regarding settled status (indefinite leave to remain) came into effect in March 2019 ie well before the first withdrawal bill. Even without no deal, it would remain law and by 31 Oct around 2 million had settled or pre-settled status, with other applications still to be processed.

3. The question of Irish unity is an interesting.one. Would Dublin actually want a united Ireland, with a significant proportion of the population not wanting to be part of the country? With Northern Ireland part of the UK, the split communities remain a British problem.

 

1. The MP whose views he applauded said that, given what the UK has contributed over the years, we should pay "not a penny piece more" and the EU could whistle for anything. It's true that, as a habitually dishonest man, the mealy-mouthed Johnson refers only to "extortionate" settlements - but he refers to "the [extortionate] sums that I've seen that they propose to demand", not to "£60bn euros" [sic] demanded by the Austrian Chancellor. Sums of around £35bn-£40bn were widely mentioned at the time and I'm sure he's quite bright enough to know that the EU is run by the EU institutions, not the Chancellor of Austria.

 

2. Point taken if the legislation was introduced early, but timing isn't the issue. You implied that Johnson was a dominant force in the negotiations, "insisting" on this, that and the other. The issue of citizens' rights was 1 of the 3 that the EU insisted should be settled in Phase 1, partly as they created negotiating vulnerabilities for the EU (potential for no divorce payment, 4.5m EU citizens in UK losing their rights & undermining of SM & EU through hard border in Ireland) - and those were the 3 big issues settled in the WA, along with the transition period. Good for the UK Govt if legislation was in place early (though would have been better, from a humanitarian perspective if both sides had sorted this back in 2016). But about a fortnight ago, Verhofstadt was threatening that the European Parliament might veto the WA if chaos in the UK system wasn't sorted out. I reckon that, if it came to that, other EU institutions like the Council might lean on the Parliament to ensure the WA was approved. Even so, it seems that there's a massive backlog of applications (500,000?) - and hundreds of thousands of long-term residents being given the temporary "pre-settled" status that you mention as they lack bureaucratic proof of continuous residency dating back years/decades.....could make Windrush seem like a minor blip if it's not sorted out. This report dates from November: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/14/rising-proportion-of-eu-citizens-being-granted-presettled-status

 

3. Decent point - I'm not sure the RoI (Govt or people) would be keen on taking early responsibility for N. Ireland if there's a major increase in sectarian tension and/or violence or a partial economic meltdown (much of the NI economy depends on the public sector, EU funding or GB-NI trade). Tbf, I'd also add that the "border in the Irish Sea" creates a less severe problem than a hard border on land would have done. But Unionists/Loyalists in N. Ireland are seriously unhappy about it & there's an obvious risk of it damaging NI/GB trade, while NI/RoI trade and relations continue to prosper, potentially boosting support for a referendum on reunification. Personally, I think that could be seriously premature and dangerous, given the lack of integration between communities, strength of opposition among Unionists/Loyalists & the fact that an effective civil war only ended about 22 years ago.....but the UK is obliged by international treaty to hold such a referendum if there's a serious prospect of a vote for reunification. Hopefully everything turns out OK, but that's the sort of risk Johnson was prepared to take, shafting the Unionists in order to get his "get Brexit done" election & 5 years of unfettered power in GB (it's pretty clear he doesn't give a shit about N. Ireland - probably not Scotland, either)

[Guest MattP]

Tell you what, point three is a cracker there.

 

Would Ireland want to take on what would effectively be a possible civil war (more likely just a return to the troubles) rather than just an open border on trade?

 

Although it's not impossible we'll see some serious unionist trouble (and terrorism) over the deal Boris has produced. They REALLY don't like it.

[String fellow]

Based on the fact that the inhabitants of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands never moan about anything, it seems to me that Northern Ireland and Scotland should perhaps be given the same international status as them, if possible.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, String fellow said:

Based on the fact that the inhabitants of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands never moan about anything, it seems to me that Northern Ireland and Scotland should perhaps be given the same international status as them, if possible.

 

What, turn Scotland and N. Ireland into tax havens?

 

That works for the Isle of Man & Channel Islands as they only have a population of about 200k between them, so they don't need too many other jobs, sources of income or public services.

A bit more difficult funding that with Scotland & N. Ireland when they have a combined population of 7 million....

 

Who should give them this new international status? England? Do the Scots and Northern Irish get any say? 

Do the English "moan about anything"? If so, should the Scots and Northern Irish decide our international status? 

[String fellow]

If the Scots wish to turn back the clock to before the Act of Union of 1707, then how about going one step further and going back to before 1468? I refer, of course, to a time when Orkney and Shetland were administered by Norway. If the government allowed Scottish independence, but with Norway getting those islands back, what a great wind-up it would be!

[Alf Bentley]

36 minutes ago, String fellow said:

If the Scots wish to turn back the clock to before the Act of Union of 1707, then how about going one step further and going back to before 1468? I refer, of course, to a time when Orkney and Shetland were administered by Norway. If the government allowed Scottish independence, but with Norway getting those islands back, what a great wind-up it would be!

 

Or take it back a couple more centuries to when the ruling class of England was French.....or a few more centuries before that, before the German, Danish and French migrants arrived and settled, giving us our mongrel English identity......or the Italians and their multinational Roman imperial forces before them.....or the North Indians before them....

[Ginger_Filbert]

Having just got back from Florida having minimal internet I’ve lost track. 
Can anyone let me know what date parliament resumes in the new year and when will the next brexit vote be?

Thanks in advance. 

[Ginger_Filbert]

Things start progressing tomorrow. 

[LiberalFox]

The problem with Scotland is they are run by a party with politics to the left of Corbyn/Momentum. 

[twoleftfeet]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

The problem with Scotland is they are run by a party with politics to the left of Corbyn/Momentum. 

I would like referendum on English independence.