Deal or No Deal

[The Bedlington Terrier]

There are too many people on both sides of the Irish border who will not tolerate a return to the "troubles".

Mark my words, a pragmatic solution will be found and I reckon the EU will be all the worse for it.

I won't say I told you so...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...CMP=GTUK_email

[sinkov]

I'm reading that there are 'intensive talks' going on this weekend, but I can't imagine what they're talking about. I could have sworn Remoaners and the EU have been saying for months that the WA is set in stone, can't be re-opened, can't be re-visited, the only deal on the table, take it or leave it. So WTF are they talking about then ? I think we should be told.

[1959_60]

I'm reading that there are 'intensive talks' going on this weekend, but I can't imagine what they're talking about. I could have sworn Remoaners and the EU have been saying for months that the WA is set in stone, can't be re-opened, can't be re-visited, the only deal on the table, take it or leave it. So WTF are they talking about then ? I think we should be told.

Sinkov.

The Withdrawal agreement was in three parts.

1/. The welfare of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the vEU. This was agreed.And won't change.

2/. Our "Divorce Bill". This was agreed to be £39 billion. I don't think this will change.

3/. The Irish border. And this is what is causing all the problems.

We agreed with the EU to the backstop. But Parliament didn't.

Basically, it was meant as a "backstop" in case a long lasting solution could not be found within the 2 years of the trade deal negotiation. If a solution could be found then the backstop would never be implemented.
So...if Boris reckons that he has found the long lasting solution then of course they will discuss it - and that's what they are doing.

I'm sure you didn't think that we had agreed that the backstop was set in stone??

[sinkov]

I'm sure you didn't think that we had agreed that the backstop was set in stone??

I didn't think anything 59, I just know what I've read,

The Week, May 30th,

"Brussels is moving to “break up” its current Brexit negotiating team, in what is seen as another indication that it has no plans to re-open discussions on Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement. The “break up” is “the most concrete sign yet that the EU has absolutely no intention of re-opening talks on the treaty”, he adds. EU leaders have repeatedly said the withdrawal agreement was not open for renegotiation, a position that was again reiterated at the latest informal EU summit."

Novinite.Com February 5th,

"Michel Barnier has warned Theresa May that the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation despite hints from the EU’s most senior civil servant suggesting otherwise, writes express.co.uk"

I could easily dredge up a thousand or more similar reports, but they all say the same thing, so I'm sure two will do.

[1959_60]

Sinkov, like I say, the WA contains the backstop, which will only come into effect if, during trade talks, no agreement can be reached on another solution to the border issue.

If an idea is mooted it will be discussed, and that is what is happening now. That's what it says in the WA. No inconsistency at all.

Should Boris's plan not be ratified in discussions with the EU then the backstop stays in the WA, as agreed.
If his idea is ratified then it will be included in the WA. As agreed.

But...then it's over to Parliament!

[sinkov]

Sinkov.

The Withdrawal agreement was in three parts.

1/. The welfare of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the vEU. This was agreed.And won't change.

2/. Our "Divorce Bill". This was agreed to be £39 billion. I don't think this will change.

3/. The Irish border. And this is what is causing all the problems.

Sometimes 59 your lack of understanding is frightening, do you really think the WA is only about Citizen's Rights, the Divorce Bill and the Irish Border ? It's 585 pages long FFS. the complex issue of Citizen's Rights takes up just 50 pages, what do you think is on the other 535 pages ? You clearly don't know, you have some serious reading to do mon ami. Do you ever wonder why this document has never received any in-depth coverage at all, you're not really meant to know what's buried inside there, not until we've signed up to it, and then it's too late.

[1959_60]

We all know that the Irish border is the sticking point.

And that is what the chatting is about.

Unless you know differently? We'll all know very shortly anyway.

[The Bedlington Terrier]

I listened to both Ugly Patel and Rebecca Long Bailey on the Andrew Marr show this morning. I have about as much chance of flapping my arms and flying as the Houses of Parliament have of hitting an accord over Brexit.

[sinkov]

Sinkov, like I say, the WA contains the backstop, which will only come into effect if, during trade talks, no agreement can be reached on another solution to the border issue.

If an idea is mooted it will be discussed, and that is what is happening now. That's what it says in the WA. No inconsistency at all.

Should Boris's plan not be ratified in discussions with the EU then the backstop stays in the WA, as agreed.
If his idea is ratified then it will be included in the WA. As agreed.

But...then it's over to Parliament!

I'm not saying the WA isn't being re-negotiated 59, of course it is, it was always likely to be, I'm just pointing out that Barnier and the EU, said on numerous occasions that it wouldn't be. That's the inconsistency. I can post up many more quotes where Barnier said it would not be re-negotiated if you like, but that would be to expose him as a liar, a bit of a fraud, someone whose word you couldn't rely on, and at this delicate stage in the negotiations I wouldn't want to do that.

[1959_60]

Let's see what Boris brings back and then compare it with Theresa's deal eh?

I guarantee that only the backstop will have changed. Which was always there as a temporary "backstop" until someone dreamed something else up.