O/T DDay for Brexit..well sort of...

[ragingpup]

Can I have some of what your drinking please Kerr?

The deal laid out (such as it is) is not workable as a Brexit plan. This plan gives us only 2 options and those 2 options are we either stay in the EU or we leave the EU but continue to be ruled by the EU but this time we will not have a say in anything done by the EU. Some ****ing plan that is eh! That is not what people voted on and that goes for both sides.

There is to much take and not enough give for this plan to go ahead.

Although in the beginning I did not want a hard Brexit as I would have liked to have had some sort of deal when we left I have found myself over the last 3 or 4 months thinking just do it, walk away and tell them to go **** themselves.

Please explain to me Kerr why you think this a deal worthy of your backing and how you think this is good for the UK?

If I'm understanding it correctly, the 500 page withdrawal document agreed with the EU assures is all that we can put controls on immigration, control our own laws and strike trade deals with other countries once we leave the eu, aimed for 2021,or whenever technology appears to solve the Irish border issue.

At that point, you can have all of these things.

But Kerr, what does the withdrawal document say that the deal with be on frictionless trade with the EU that we need to maintain our just in time supply chain? If there is an agreement on that buried in there, that we can trade with the EU tariff free then id go for it.

I'm assuming that if we have struck deals for future trading with the EU seeing as we're taking back control of laws, free movement and free trade? Otherwise, wouldn't we get sorely hammered in the future trade agreement if that has yet to be agreed? What assurances do we have on this in the big document Mr Kerr? Surely it's in there as if it wasn't, surely you wouldn't expect them to give us all our toys and not hit us on future trade deal to deter other countries?

[Exiletyke]

I thought nothing is agreed until everything is agreed

[KerrAvon]

Can I have some of what your drinking please Kerr?

The deal laid out (such as it is) is not workable as a Brexit plan. This plan gives us only 2 options and those 2 options are we either stay in the EU or we leave the EU but continue to be ruled by the EU but this time we will not have a say in anything done by the EU. Some ****ing plan that is eh! That is not what people voted on and that goes for both sides.

There is to much take and not enough give for this plan to go ahead.

Although in the beginning I did not want a hard Brexit as I would have liked to have had some sort of deal when we left I have found myself over the last 3 or 4 months thinking just do it, walk away and tell them to go **** themselves.

Please explain to me Kerr why you think this a deal worthy of your backing and how you think this is good for the UK?

The problem with all this bullshine as I see it is that May went in there asking what the EU would be happy with for us to leave on good terms and that was the wrong thing to do from the start, she should have gone in there with all guns blazing and dictating what was acceptable to us to make a deal (some small negotiation obviously).

We have them over a barrel if they were intelligent enough to see it. If we walk away with a no deal and we make it work (and I know we will) then the EU is on to a loser but as it is this shower have no clue as to how strong our position is in what the future of the EU holds.

Davis went in all guns blazing and saying what he wanted and Barnier said ‘non’. Several months of that followed, because, as I have mentioned, the Leave camp have consistently underestimated the resolve of the EU to protect the integrity of what they see as a European project and their willingness to take some economic pain to do that.

We don’t have the EU over a barrel. After a no deal Brexit, the EU countries will all be members of a very large trading bloc. The UK won’t.

The regime that would come into existence if the backstop within the withdrawal agreement were triggered would leave the UK in a position where we would have to accept some EU regulations. The intention is that it never will be triggered as neither the UK nor the EU want it. The danger is that a trade deal that would make the backstop unnecessary may take a great deal of time to be agreed as a trade deal has to be unanimously signed off by the EU countries (whereas the withdrawal deal requires only a simple majority).

[KerrAvon]

If I'm understanding it correctly, the 500 page withdrawal document agreed with the EU assures is all that we can put controls on immigration, control our own laws and strike trade deals with other countries once we leave the eu, aimed for 2021,or whenever technology appears to solve the Irish border issue.

At that point, you can have all of these things.

But Kerr, what does the withdrawal document say that the deal with be on frictionless trade with the EU that we need to maintain our just in time supply chain? If there is an agreement on that buried in there, that we can trade with the EU tariff free then id go for it.

I'm assuming that if we have struck deals for future trading with the EU seeing as we're taking back control of laws, free movement and free trade? Otherwise, wouldn't we get sorely hammered in the future trade agreement if that has yet to be agreed? What assurances do we have on this in the big document Mr Kerr? Surely it's in there as if it wasn't, surely you wouldn't expect them to give us all our toys and not hit us on future trade deal to deter other countries?

We leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, unless we ask for an extension and the remaining EU countries unanimously agree. We leave the transition period on 31st December 2020 unless the EU agrees an extension (they are rumoured to be intending to offer another two years to try to ensure that the backstop is never triggered – that would be fun as it would take us past the next General Election).

The draft withdrawal agreement does not say anything about frictionless trade with the EU, because it is a withdrawal deal, not a trade deal. The EU have been clear that they will not negotiate a trade deal until we have left in March 2019. You appear to be making the same mistake that Davis did in believing that because you think something is a good idea and keep saying it, the EU will suddenly agree with you. Events since the referendum say otherwise. There are only so many ways that I can tell you this.

What the EU has been willing to do is to agree a joint political statement with the UK, that I linked to for you. It sets out a jointly agreed framework for what both parties will seek to achieve in the post exit trade deal negotiations.

[BigLadonOS]

Kerr your just spouting the same bag of bollox over and over again but you are actually saying nothing mate as the outcome still remains to be that a full and proper deal will not be decided until after we give the EU what they want!!!!!!! And even after that it still comes down to what the EU are willing to give us.

If we go ahead and sign this deal then not only are the Gov going against the leave vote they are actually burying us deeper into EU control! How come you cannot see that? May is playing a deadly game wanting this deal to pass, why do you think so many of her cabinet have walked away from it!

What we need is a strong leader to go in there and forge a deal that is good for this country. Why should we care what the EU want? We are leaving the EU or at least supposed to be so who gives a flying **** what is good for them. And if you really believe that no EU country will trade with us after we leave with a no deal Brexit you really do need your head feeling mate. Plenty of countries will follow us after we make the break but it has to be a clean break not a whimpering submissive one like May is trying to force through. The EU is clinging to the hope that they can hang on to us until after the next GE in the hope that whoever wins might change their mind and stay in. May is playing right into their hands and she either cant see it or she is hoping for the same thing herself.

Lets take the bull by the horns and **** them off completely and leave without a glance back.

[KerrAvon]

I'm spouting what I believe over and over again and you are doing the same.

An agreement will follow from negotiations in which we say what we want, the EU says what it wants and there is a degree of compromise so that we meet in the middle. That's how negotiations work.

The draft withdrawal deal does not 'bury us deeper into EU control'; you are mistaken.

We cannot unilaterally forge any deal. The EU has its own aims from the negotiations and we should care what they are as they will inform their negotiating position.

Of course EU countries will trade with us after Brexit. The issue is the additional costs that will be imposed through tarrifs and custom checks if we do not achieve something approaching a free trade deal. Any additional costs will have to be borne by UK based companies and individual consumers.

[ragingpup]

We leave the EU on the 29th March 2019, unless we ask for an extension and the remaining EU countries unanimously agree. We leave the transition period on 31st December 2020 unless the EU agrees an extension (they are rumoured to be intending to offer another two years to try to ensure that the backstop is never triggered – that would be fun as it would take us past the next General Election).

The draft withdrawal agreement does not say anything about frictionless trade with the EU, because it is a withdrawal deal, not a trade deal. The EU have been clear that they will not negotiate a trade deal until we have left in March 2019. You appear to be making the same mistake that Davis did in believing that because you think something is a good idea and keep saying it, the EU will suddenly agree with you. Events since the referendum say otherwise. There are only so many ways that I can tell you this.

What the EU has been willing to do is to agree a joint political statement with the UK, that I linked to for you. It sets out a jointly agreed framework for what both parties will seek to achieve in the post exit trade deal negotiations.

What I'm confused about, and what I have learned on this thread is that through the withdrawal agreement you say (and I take on trust now, not got time to read) the EU have given us what we want in terms of the freedom to control our borders (good thing for me), the ability to make our own laws (good or bad dependent on who is running the country) and the ability to strike trade deals with other nations (good thing).

I don't even have time to go back over the 7 page doc you linked to this morning - wasn't there a commitment between the EU and UK to aim for tariff/friction free trade in the opening part? I thought I saw that but may have read it wrong as am crap at legal docs (as you see). If there is a genuine resolve in faith between the EU and UK to negotiate as close to that as possible, that ain't a bad outcome. If it isn't, then I'm concerend that we will be remorselessly penalised in the trade agreement for having our cake.

Where I differ from Davis, Mogg etc is that I always expected to get a battering from the EU (for same reasons you highlighted) but hoped that the public would become well informed that we couldn't have it both ways, see the light and pressure for a re-vote to give us either the option to remain or an informed willingness, through another democratic vote, to take the economic risks.

Biglad, GF etc are I think more on the side of Davis, Mogg in that they just want to get away, think we'll be fine and are willing to take whatever risks to secure a hard Brexit, ot at least believe they can force the EU to renegotiate more to our whims. My position is that I would not take that risk with this negotiating team or any from further right who are vying to replace her - I agree with you that the EU are not willing to give more to this government and their own red lines - but they would happily wait for a change of negotiating team via a GE or re-vote if this falls down. I say this as it would be hugely in their interests. You obviously don't see this so let's agree to disagree.

[BigLadonOS]

I'm spouting what I believe over and over again and you are doing the same.

An agreement will follow from negotiations in which we say what we want, the EU says what it wants and there is a degree of compromise so that we meet in the middle. That's how negotiations work.

The draft withdrawal deal does not 'bury us deeper into EU control'; you are mistaken.

We cannot unilaterally forge any deal. The EU has its own aims from the negotiations and we should care what they are as they will inform their negotiating position.

Of course EU countries will trade with us after Brexit. The issue is the additional costs that will be imposed through tarrifs and custom checks if we do not achieve something approaching a free trade deal. Any additional costs will have to be borne by UK based companies and individual consumers.

Can you right now put your hand on your heart and say that this is a good deal for the UK? Going into blind negotiations with the EU holding all the cards? They could make these negotiations last for 10 years if they wanted. If no compromise can be made and why would there be a compromise from the EU it would have the effect of either we stay run by EU laws or we or forced to a hard Brexit. No matter how you look at it and from what angle this deal is so bad for the UK that only party line towers would even think of backing it.

You say that we would have control over our own borders yet the EU are wanting to split the UK? Where is that control over our own borders if we cant even control what is already part of the UK without a deal from the EU.

[WanChaiMiller]

Can you right now put your hand on your heart and say that this is a good deal for the UK? Going into blind negotiations with the EU holding all the cards? They could make these negotiations last for 10 years if they wanted. If no compromise can be made and why would there be a compromise from the EU it would have the effect of either we stay run by EU laws or we or forced to a hard Brexit. No matter how you look at it and from what angle this deal is so bad for the UK that only party line towers would even think of backing it.

You say that we would have control over our own borders yet the EU are wanting to split the UK? Where is that control over our own borders if we cant even control what is already part of the UK without a deal from the EU.

With respect Biglad, are you not confusing the transition deal (going through the house now) with the final deal (which we have not started negotiating yet).

As I see it (and please someone explain if Im wrong) if the transition deal goes through our parliament and the EU approve it, we are effectively out of the EU (given negotiating the final deal).

[Exiletyke]

What I'm confused about, and what I have learned on this thread is that through the withdrawal agreement you say (and I take on trust now, not got time to read) the EU have given us what we want in terms of the freedom to control our borders (good thing for me), the ability to make our own laws (good or bad dependent on who is running the country) and the ability to strike trade deals with other nations (good thing).

I don't even have time to go back over the 7 page doc you linked to this morning - wasn't there a commitment between the EU and UK to aim for tariff/friction free trade in the opening part? I thought I saw that but may have read it wrong as am crap at legal docs (as you see). If there is a genuine resolve in faith between the EU and UK to negotiate as close to that as possible, that ain't a bad outcome. If it isn't, then I'm concerend that we will be remorselessly penalised in the trade agreement for having our cake.

Where I differ from Davis, Mogg etc is that I always expected to get a battering from the EU (for same reasons you highlighted) but hoped that the public would become well informed that we couldn't have it both ways, see the light and pressure for a re-vote to give us either the option to remain or an informed willingness, through another democratic vote, to take the economic risks.

Biglad, GF etc are I think more on the side of Davis, Mogg in that they just want to get away, think we'll be fine and are willing to take whatever risks to secure a hard Brexit, ot at least believe they can force the EU to renegotiate more to our whims. My position is that I would not take that risk with this negotiating team or any from further right who are vying to replace her - I agree with you that the EU are not willing to give more to this government and their own red lines - but they would happily wait for a change of negotiating team via a GE or re-vote if this falls down. I say this as it would be hugely in their interests. You obviously don't see this so let's agree to disagree.

I'm amazed at you rp
You seriously think that KA could agree to disagree, that would mean he'd have to break the habits of a lifetime & agree
Bear in mind he argues for a living so he needs the practice
So remember don't cry havoc & don't let slip the dogs of war [I know it's tempting but don't respond]
If you & others starve him of his raison d'etre who is he going to argue with?