Chez, don't be deliberately disingenuous. You're not an idiot.

It's the same answer as 'Why didn't Germany ignore Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles'


And I do think the EU will use this leverage very badly, they are a group, and groups do not have to take individual responsibility. The EU are pretty useless at history imo, and do not understand the consequences of a Carthaginian Peace, I suspect.

Not clear remain will be an option if there is another referendum, so yes it's pathetic we're in the 11th hour and the calls for remaining are still very much muted.

--

Apologies SootedPowa.

It's a horrible analogy but even that came down to bitterness, real politics and negotiations and violations.

Politics never ends. If it came about and the uk really felt trapped in an agreement we hated then the UK would insist on renegotiation or just leaving it. The EU would have no practical option but to renegotiate.

The reality is that it's nonsense to think a piece of paper ends the matter - I can think of another horrible analogy.

That's a different extreme. The backstop may be needed but the idea it's could go on forever with us helplessly trapped is just ignoring political reality

it is disappointing how easily people fall into the 'nothing can be done' trap.

I agree it would have been better if more remainers had been bolder earlier but I still wouldn't call it pathetic. 'Tragic' describes it better imo

and remain will be an option if we get the 2nd ref..

Let's take a possible passage of time, firmly grounded in reality.

Macron has said he will not let the final deal talks proceed unless the UK lays open its natural resources to the EU. UK says no.

UK currently has to lay those resources open until final deal is done. France and other EU countries that want UK natural resources can continue to exploit them if trade deal never signed off...(actually, never even negotiated...)

Tell me what you expect to happen?


Here's what I expect: France (and other countries that benefit) will stonewall until UK caves.

Do you think the UK should have the option to choose not to open those fishing grounds, on the understanding those fish cannot be sold to the EU? Or do we have to go to no deal as the only alternative to not opening those grounds.... oh wait, we can't go to no deal cos backstop...


I have no idea why you would think this would work out as anything but terrible for the UK...

Is my analogy of the UK as a milking cow being even more firmly harnessed to prevent escape starting to feel a little more apt to you btw?

The backstop does not allow all the access he wants. Fishing was the thing he mentioned and it makes far more sense to read his outburst as aimed at his home audience where he is in big trouble and has just signed the right of access away.

I expect there will be a trade deal done with various accesses for all concerned (including us). That or something else will happen with agreement e.g rejoin the EU or rejoin EFTA or ...

What wont happen is politics stopping with us trapped in something hated by the UK

Not remotely no. The ties are down to our interests.

If the EU side of the table don't agree to end it ever, what do we do again?

That's what we've just been discussing. Obviously we have some commitment to the agreement (as do they) but no, if this 'trap' materialises and push comes to shove then we break the agreement (as could they)

I suppose we could invade poland although ii would seem simpler just to tell the EU we wont be complying with it anymore if we cannot find an acceptable way forward. Obviously that has consequences but that's just as true now (when we don't have a piece of paper saying we cant leave)

Not any more. The ties are down to what the EU can squeeze out of us. That's fine and correct for negotiations - when both can actually walk away, but May's deal is shutting that door. What sort of negotiation is it when one side cannot leave the table until the other side is happy?

I think 'forced capitulation' is a reasonable description.

They can only 'squeeze us' if we have a self-interest to be 'squeezed'. May may have hurt the UK's interests by having the tory party to worry about but that's not the EUs fault

btw as far as your point goes, neither side can leave that table. So both sides are being squeezed and both sides have a forced capitulation.

You understand nothing at all about fisheries. Territorial waters only extend twelve miles. Rights beyond that are negotiable. Almost all of the UK catch is sold to the EU, because you can't sell it fresh to anyone else. As with anything in life (contrary to the fascist fantasies of Brexitards), you have to reach an accommodation with your neighbours.

Fishing is a marginal industry employing only 20,000 people, it's been in decline since 1900 because they overfished, and it really doesn't matter that much.

The reason we can't go to No Deal is that it would destroy the country and the lives of everyone in it except the 1% who have organised this whole con. And, if it happened, the life of any government minister who permitted it would be worth less than spit.

I perceive you're one of those people who still don't know that May's deal is only the Withdrawal Agreement and is not the Future Relationship, which has yet to be negotiated. There are a lot of problems with May's deal, and one is that it does not give anything like enough time to negotiate the Future Relationship, and it will just push us to the cliff-edge once again, with an unknown payment for extension which will simply be dictated. It's no good at all.

What May does is to kick the can down the road. That's all she ever does and all she is psychologically capable of doing. (The only ruling principle that we know she has is a vicious hatred of foreigners, brown people and internationalists, or 'citizens of nowhere' as she calls us, echoing Adolf Hitler's rhetoric against Jews. She's mad, basically. Clean off her trolley.) Nobody should accept her 'blindfold' deal. And nobody should imagine that, in the brief transition period allowed, Labour would negotiate anything worthwhile. Both parties are simply lying to you. Art.50 revocation and Remain is the only viable option.

Then surely the backstop should be time-limited.

Or it should be constructed in such a way the "No Deal" is a possible future relationship that deactivates the need for the backstop.

Interesting article
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tain-austerity

"Our work at BritainThinks identifies four Brexit tribes, not two, and shows that as much as two-thirds of opinion is clustered at the extremes. We identify the “diehards” who were delighted by the original referendum result, and have few significant concerns about leaving the European Union. At the opposite end of the spectrum sit the “devastated pessimists”, who were extremely disappointed by the result and can see no positives at all in leaving.

These two groups represent more than 65% of the public, while the remaining third is made up of two groups: cautious optimists and accepting pragmatists – the former being broadly in favour of leaving but voicing some concerns, while the latter is disappointed overall but can also see some upsides to leaving. Polls focusing on a binary choice flatten out these important nuances and ignore the crucial swing voters in the middle."


[x] diehard

Some sympathy with the idea behind this but it's clearly been very hard to agree anything useful

One thing about an end date is that it tends to become a minimum rather than a maximum so it's probably not what you want. This is because nothing tends to get finalised until you get to the wire. There's a fair chance the backstop will never be used but if it is the pressure to end will start immediately because there is no far off date that allows everyone to relax for a while.

Disagree a fair bit with 57 saying there's not long enough. There's already been a lot of work and we are starting from a position of regulatory alignments. It's about political will more than lots of time time and there's a very good chance that avoiding the backstop would do the necessary focusing of the political will.

[x] devastated. Wouldn't call myself a pessimist. We would recover from shooting ourselves in both feet and I still hope we can stop those bullets on route.

The BBC is talking about 9 tribes just among tory MPs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46386172

Interesting article from Der Spiegel about the mistakes on the road to where we are

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1240126.html

What is a blue herring?

Seeing Hilary Benn at the Teresa May bbq the other day reminded me there are actually people in the labour party that arent complete *****.

I wish he was leader of opposition

If by that you mean he's a complete washout incapable of recognising and addressing the deep problems and divisions that have afflicted this country for decades, I guess you're right.

No I mean he is not a total prick who talks total bollocks

Are you sure you aren't being a little hasty?

I remember Kinnock being impressive many times on QT. Then he became leader...

Eh he was always a pompous jaw-jaw.

Name one person other than Starmer on opposition bench who doesn't make most people shake their heads in disbelief.

Not saying tories are great but labour seems to be almost entirely the utter pits.