The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

I'm sorry Pann but it was you who said the EU set up a bad timeline if they knew there was likely not enough time to get the deal done. They included the extension option for that very reason, and the only bloody reason the Tories could write in their bloody manifesto that they wouldn't use was that it existed at that time. Thus the EU made a sensible system that the Tories then decided to fuck up.
That the system without the extension in it is unfit for any sort of unicorn breeding is the fault of team Boris. Seriously do you complain to a carpenter that he made a wobbly table after your idiot cousin sawed one of the legs off?

That is simply not true! I have said - repeatedly - that the timeline was set and agreed by both the EU and the UK, you are the one that keeps pushing the idea that the EU was unaware that the UK would not take an extension and/or they knowingly agreed to a deadline that believed they are simply incapable of meeting. My point is that the EU are simply not that poorly informed or that stupid - I don't know why you keep arguing that they are.

Why do you keep going on about unicorns? That's so last year - the world has moved on.

[Muzjhath]

That is simply not true! I have said - repeatedly - that the timeline was set and agreed by both the EU and the UK, you are the one that keeps pushing the idea that the EU was unaware that the UK would not take an extension and/or they knowingly agreed to a deadline that believed they are simply incapable of meeting. My point is that the EU are simply not that poorly informed or that stupid - I don't know why you keep arguing that they are.

Why do you keep going on about unicorns? That's so last year - the world has moved on.

The starting timeline was set by both parties. With one party going "This is enough if they accept a trade policy as it stands currently. If they want it changed, we need to extend it." So that party made sure a method for extending it was in.
The other party going "We want to sell you our rusty cars. I know you don't allow rusty cars on market but we are the ENGLISH SO FUCK YOU and deal with it. And if you don't accept that by tomorrow we are out!" So after signing the agreement that allowed for extensions they made extending the agreement illegal in their country. Fucking up the process.

This is 100% on the UK. Stop fucking blaming the EU and accept the fact that the UK (With it's electorate as you seem to hold those responsible, not just the politicians) are fucking up the UK. The EU is trying to make that fall as easy on the UK (and EU) as possible.
The UK just doesn't care.

Edit: And the fact that the Good Friday Agreement exists makes any trade agreement more difficult. A thing that the EU has stressed since the Brexit vote happened. A thing that the UK has handwaved and keeps handwaving.

[Pann]

The starting timeline was set by both parties. With one party going "This is enough if they accept a trade policy as it stands currently. If they want it changed, we need to extend it." So that party made sure a method for extending it was in.
The other party going "We want to sell you our rusty cars. I know you don't allow rusty cars on market but we are the ENGLISH SO FUCK YOU and deal with it. And if you don't accept that by tomorrow we are out!" So after signing the agreement that allowed for extensions they made extending the agreement illegal in their country. Fucking up the process.

This is 100% on the UK. Stop fucking blaming the EU and accept the fact that the UK (With it's electorate as you seem to hold those responsible, not just the politicians) are fucking up the UK. The EU is trying to make that fall as easy on the UK (and EU) as possible.
The UK just doesn't care.

Edit: And the fact that the Good Friday Agreement exists makes any trade agreement more difficult. A thing that the EU has stressed since the Brexit vote happened. A thing that the UK has handwaved and keeps handwaving.

Yawn - these analogies are getting increasing worse.

I suggest that you at least try to read up on things before posting.

Parliament passed the Withdrawal Bill - which included the ban on an extension (although why you lot are hung up on this when it can be changed or repealed at anytime I don't know) - on 20th December 2019. The European Parliament gave its consent to the Withdrawal Agreement on 29th January 2020 and it was concluded by the Council a day later.

So your claim that UK made it illegal after signing the agreement is completely and utterly false.

I am not blaming the EU. You on the other hand seem to be really upset with the ENGLISH(???) though.

I am going to assume that your research into the GFA is as thorough as your looking up the WA timeline so I won't bother with that one.

[Mayhem]

Yawn - these analogies are getting increasing worse.

I suggest that you at least try to read up on things before posting.

Parliament passed the Withdrawal Bill - which included the ban on an extension (although why you lot are hung up on this when it can be changed or repealed at anytime I don't know) - on 20th December 2019. The European Parliament gave its consent to the Withdrawal Agreement on 29th January 2020 and it was concluded by the Council a day later.

So your claim that UK made it illegal after signing the agreement is completely and utterly false.

I am not blaming the EU. You on the other hand seem to be really upset with the ENGLISH(???) though.

I am going to assume that your research into the GFA is as thorough as your looking up the WA timeline so I won't bother with that one.

Writing of the text (Withdrawal Agreement) was published in October 2019. Thorough research you did there Pann. And who claimed the UK made it illegal after signing?

[Kiri]

Yawn - these analogies are getting increasing worse.

I suggest that you at least try to read up on things before posting.

Parliament passed the Withdrawal Bill - which included the ban on an extension (although why you lot are hung up on this when it can be changed or repealed at anytime I don't know) - on 20th December 2019. The European Parliament gave its consent to the Withdrawal Agreement on 29th January 2020 and it was concluded by the Council a day later.

So your claim that UK made it illegal after signing the agreement is completely and utterly false.

I am not blaming the EU. You on the other hand seem to be really upset with the ENGLISH(???) though.

I am going to assume that your research into the GFA is as thorough as your looking up the WA timeline so I won't bother with that one.

To be honest, neither of you has to blame anyone, you just got sidetracked from the initial argument.
I.e. your disagreement as to how much alignment there has to be between EU and UK in order to suss out a proper trade deal, with you insisting that the UK can easily and quickly gain a third country deal like the Canadian one and others pointing out that it would be a tad different and more complex.
You guys should return to that discussion, instead of going on about who started it or whatever.

[Pann]

To be honest, neither of you has to blame anyone, you just got sidetracked from the initial argument.
I.e. your disagreement as to how much alignment there has to be between EU and UK in order to suss out a proper trade deal, with you insisting that the UK can easily and quickly gain a third country deal like the Canadian one and others pointing out that it would be a tad different and more complex.
You guys should return to that discussion, instead of going on about who started it or whatever.

I haven't insisted that the UK can easily or quickly gain a deal like Canada I have simply pointed out this is what the UK wants. Also I have made no comment on whether it would be easy or quick, I have however pointed out that the timeline was agreed by both parties and as such they must have believed the timeline - although challenging - was reasonable.

[Gibblewink]

I haven't insisted that the UK can easily or quickly gain a deal like Canada I have simply pointed out this is what the UK wants. Also I have made no comment on whether it would be easy or quick, I have however pointed out that the timeline was agreed by both parties and as such they must have believed the timeline - although challenging - was reasonable.

The timeline was reasonable for A trade deal to be reached, which is ok for the EU. The UK wants a complex trade deal to be done in a fraction of the time required, which is bonkers. Resolving the disconnect from reality that apparently exists in the UK leadership is not really the job of Michel Barnier.

[Pann]

The timeline was reasonable for A trade deal to be reached, which is ok for the EU. The UK wants a complex trade deal to be done in a fraction of the time required, which is bonkers. Resolving the disconnect from reality that apparently exists in the UK leadership is not really the job of Michel Barnier.

The UK has said it wants a Canada style agreement it is the EU that wants to a closer - and potentially more complex - relationship.

[Mayhem]

The UK has said it wants a Canada style agreement it is the EU that wants to a closer - and potentially more complex - relationship.

Yes, and the UK has agreed to the timeline as well and thinks it can hammer out a Canada style agreement within months while also reneging parts already agreed upon. But yeah, it's the EU that is at fault, obviously.

[Gorsameth]

The UK has said it wants a Canada style agreement it is the EU that wants to a closer - and potentially more complex - relationship.

If both sides started from 0 then your right that what the EU wants is more complex. But that is not the starting point. The close relation already exists. The further you move away from that close relation to more things need to be changed.

[Gibblewink]

The UK has said it wants a Canada style agreement it is the EU that wants to a closer - and potentially more complex - relationship.

The preferred scenario for the EU is exceedingly simple to negotiate since it involves the UK staying in the customs union and the single market. "Let's not change anything" isn't overly hard. But while the EU has realised that that isn't what the UK wants, it is not the EU's job to bend reality and make UK wishes come true.
The UK wants a trade deal that is both very complex and super fast so we're still at "Have our cake and eat it".

[Huehuecoyotl]

I haven't insisted that the UK can easily or quickly gain a deal like Canada I have simply pointed out this is what the UK wants. Also I have made no comment on whether it would be easy or quick, I have however pointed out that the timeline was agreed by both parties and as such they must have believed the timeline - although challenging - was reasonable.

And both sides agreed to the existence of an extension mechanism, in the event that the timeline proved impossible. One side is still prepared to use that extension, both because of the delays in the Brexit process and the Coronavirus issue. The other side is sticking to the position that they won't use it despite circumstances being radicly changed from when the original timeline was agreed, and the current timeline being effectively impossible even before the outbreak started.

Which side looks like the grownup in that description?

[poilasathanor]

I haven't insisted that the UK can easily or quickly gain a deal like Canada I have simply pointed out this is what the UK wants. Also I have made no comment on whether it would be easy or quick, I have however pointed out that the timeline was agreed by both parties and as such they must have believed the timeline - although challenging - was reasonable.

Pann repeatedly clearly implies something and then resorts to overtly technical and literal re-interpretation of what he clearly implied so he can go "ah you misquoted me". Eventually you notice he's doing it deliberately. The onus is on him to communicate better.

[Kronik85]

I'm just going to point out that this entire back and forth is predicated on the notion that at any point in this governments negotiations that BoJo has acted in good faith.

Galling as it may be the EU has been played by agreeing to this timeline and then assuming that Team BoJo would somehow be different behind closed doors. No, BoJo never wanted a deal and it was a huge mistake by the EU to ever assume that he did.

[Gibblewink]

I'm just going to point out that this entire back and forth is predicated on the notion that at any point in this governments negotiations that BoJo has acted in good faith.

Galling as it may be the EU has been played by agreeing to this timeline and then assuming that Team BoJo would somehow be different behind closed doors. No, BoJo never wanted a deal and it was a huge mistake by the EU to ever assume that he did.

The problem is that the other option would be to walk away. That would let the UK government off the hook for failing to reach a deal and supply ammunition for anti-EU movements to claim that eVuL EU R bein' meanies to the UK for no good reason. You just stay at the table putting on your best smile, hoping that the other side has a change or heart (and brain) and if everything falls apart you get to be the one saying: "Well, at least we tried our best".

[Pann]

No, BoJo never wanted a deal and it was a huge mistake by the EU to ever assume that he did.

If no deal was Johnson's aim he could have had it the end of last year - when he took office the EU had said it's May's deal, take it or leave it, parliament was paralysed with indecision and would agree to anything, he could have just run the clock down and blamed not only the EU but parliament as well.

Instead he negotiated an alternative deal and tried to and eventually did pass it through parliament. Why do this if no deal is his end game? And what does he and the Con party have to gain from no deal (the WA agreement has been signed into law so all the unpalatable things such as the border in the Irish Sea would not be avoided) over the deal they have invested so much political capital in?

Also if this is his goal then why hasn't it leaked? Why have none of the remainers in the Con Party said anything?

Maybe I'm missing something but it just doesn't make sense to me.

[Kronik85]

If no deal was Johnson's aim he could have had it the end of last year - when he took office the EU had said it's May's deal, take it or leave it, parliament was paralysed with indecision and would agree to anything, he could have just run the clock down and blamed not only the EU but parliament as well.

Instead he negotiated an alternative deal and tried to and eventually did pass it through parliament. Why do this if no deal is his end game? And what does he and the Con party have to gain from no deal over the deal they have invested so much political capital in?

Maybe I'm missing something but it just doesn't make sense to me.

First deal bought him time to diffuse tensions within the party, moderates aren't going to rebel now when this deal times out whilst it would have been pretty catastrophic during his first month.

Or if we want to be completely flippant. Try and say the words out loud "Boris Johnson" and "acted in good faith" and just see how that feels. My bet would be that you will be paralysed in hysterics at the absurdity.

[Pann]

First deal bought him time to diffuse tensions within the party, moderates aren't going to rebel now when this deal times out whilst it would have been pretty catastrophic during his first month.

Or if we want to be completely flippant. Try and say the words out loud "Boris Johnson" and "acted in good faith" and just see how that feels. My bet would be that you will be paralysed in hysterics at the absurdity.

I might be misunderstanding you but if negotiations had timed out in Dec last year it would have been catastrophic but it won't be in Dec this year?

If he tries but fails to agree a FTA I don't think Johnson has anything - politically at least - to fear from no deal and my impression is that he will follow through with no deal if negotiations are unsuccessful. But I do not believe that the moderate remainers and leavers - don't forget that the hard Brexit bellends are a minority - within the Con party would accept the deliberate engineering of a no deal situation and I think that if Johnson tried to do so he would find himself in the same position as May was before she was ousted.

As a general rule of thumb I find that politicians tend to act in manner that benefits them or their career and Johnson is renowned for acting in self interest. I can see lots of potential downsides for Johnson to try this but no real benefit.

[Kronik85]

I might be misunderstanding you but if negotiations had timed out in Dec last year it would have been catastrophic but it won't be in Dec this year?

Yes, fledgling governments are much more vulnerable than well established ones and a year is an awfully long time in politics. Come this December BoJo will be much better placed to deal with the inevitable No Deal.

If he tries but fails to agree a FTA I don't think Johnson has anything - politically at least - to fear from no deal and my impression is that he will follow through with no deal if negotiations are unsuccessful. But I do not believe that the moderate remainers and leavers - don't forget that the hard Brexit bellends are a minority - within the Con party would accept the deliberate engineering of a no deal situation and I think that if Johnson tried to do so he would find himself in the same position as May was before she was ousted.

As a general rule of thumb I find that politicians tend to act in manner that benefits them or their career and Johnson is renowned for acting in self interest. I can see lots of potential downsides for Johnson to try this but no real benefit.

I think we mostly agree here. My take is that BoJo is completely uninvested in a deal, I think his aim is to "look strong", that's it. He has no critics in the media for the most part so it doesn't matter if negotiations fail, they will spin it whichever way looks good for him.

Maybe I could cede that "BoJo doesn't want a deal" isn't accurate. What I should of said is that "BoJo doesn't care about a deal" and it was a mistake by the EU to think he was invested in one.

No matter what happens now BoJo wins. They've played into his hands now though and whatever happens will now be spun as the EU's fault by the Murdoch Media.

Now as to the idea that it doesn't make sense to orchestrate a No Deal then let's just go with an evidence led approach. Everything the Gov has done and said so far has made No Deal more likely so it's hard to argue otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Also on a tangentially related rant. Can we imagine the headlines if a theoretical Prime Minister Corbyn had given a speech saying people will die and the official Government response had been to do nothing when it could have been taking measures, then to double down on that non existent approach and then say that was the strategy all along and herd immunity will handle it.

I'm guessing Nick Ferrari wouldn't be talking about how Presidential JC was being like he is for BoJo.

[Pann]

Yes, fledgling governments are much more vulnerable than well established ones and a year is an awfully long time in politics. Come this December BoJo will be much better placed to deal with the inevitable No Deal.

I'm not sure that would be the case, if Johnson had done nothing and just let the time run down to no-deal he would have been able to blame May for the disastrous election that saw the Cons majority whittled away, the rebels in his own party, the rest of parliament for not passing the deal on offer as well as the EU for refusing to renegotiate with him. Whilst no doubt remainers would not swayed by any of this I feel that he would have had enough backing from leaver supporters to see him through.

The fact that he did renegotiate another deal with the EU which he then subsequently ran his election campaign on puts an expectation on him, not only from within his party but from the electorate as well, to see it through.

I think we mostly agree here. My take is that BoJo is completely uninvested in a deal, I think his aim is to "look strong", that's it. He has no critics in the media for the most part so it doesn't matter if negotiations fail, they will spin it whichever way looks good for him.

Maybe I could cede that "BoJo doesn't want a deal" isn't accurate. What I should of said is that "BoJo doesn't care about a deal" and it was a mistake by the EU to think he was invested in one.

No matter what happens now BoJo wins. They've played into his hands now though and whatever happens will now be spun as the EU's fault by the Murdoch Media.

Now as to the idea that it doesn't make sense to orchestrate a No Deal then let's just go with an evidence led approach. Everything the Gov has done and said so far has made No Deal more likely so it's hard to argue otherwise.

I think we're getting a philosophical here.

I, obviously, don't know how much Johnson cares about the deal or not but I would assume that he, like most PMs, is concerned about his legacy and as Brexit will form a massive part of it he therefore has at least some incentive to make the best of it.

Some people will blame the EU regardless of facts just as some will blame Johnson no matter what happens. Most will just shrug their shoulders and get on with life.

What has the government done that makes no deal more likely? Isn't a bit early to make this kind of assumption seeing as the WA was only agreed a little over a month ago and there has only been one set meetings so far? I agree that the imposed deadline certainly adds to the possibility but with the election result as it was and the frustration of voters with endless delays there was never going to be the possibility (outside of something extreme - and as I have said before I expect that Coronavirus will cause a delay) of extending.