The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

They did:
Here is the joint position in December. Article 50 (Oh, the irony) on the backstop solution indicates now regulatory barriers.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/site...int_report.pdf
This is Davis two days later: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-brexit-deal
We are talking international relations and negotiations here. When you reach such an agreement, both sides expect to be able to put it in legal terms and move on.
So far the UK has not looked united, reliable or trustworthy in any of this.

edit:forgot the first link

Davis was asked a question specifically regarding a no-deal scenario and saying a non-binding agreement is not binding is not backtracking on anything. Both the EU and the UK knew the agreement was non-binding when they agreed it - had either side expected that it was to be binding they would have said so.

[Demolitia]

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...58438201520129

DUP still refuse reality. backstop will bite them and no dancing around will save them.

There you go.

[Pann]

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...58438201520129

DUP still refuse reality. backstop will bite them and no dancing around will save them.

What exactly do think is going on? You've claimed that the DUP are backtracking and your evidence is a tweet that makes no mention of any backtracking and cites a DUP source.

To be honest I don't think it is the DUP's sense of reality that is the issue here.

[Demolitia]

Davis was asked a question specifically regarding a no-deal scenario and saying a non-binding agreement is not binding is not backtracking on anything. Both the EU and the UK knew the agreement was non-binding when they agreed it - had either side expected that it was to be binding they would have said so.

Had either side expected something was not binding they wouldn't have included it in their common agreement.

[Pann]

Had either side expected something was not binding they wouldn't have included it in their common agreement.

Nonsense! Both sides had the ability to insist that the phase 1 agreement be legally binding, as has been suggested in phase 2, yet neither did. And to be honest I don't know why anyone would think that anything would be binding if no deal was reached.

[ranzino]

Nonsense! Both sides had the ability to insist that the phase 1 agreement be legally binding, as has been suggested in phase 2, yet neither did. And to be honest I don't know why anyone would think that anything would be binding if no deal was reached.

Phase 2 is under provision phase 1 IS finished and not negotiated again. means if there's no miracle to solve the border issue, NI will have to remain in CM.
Reality as of now would demand you are ok with NI in common market, because UK also ruled out a hard border.

[Demolitia]

Nonsense! Both sides had the ability to insist that the phase 1 agreement be legally binding, as has been suggested in phase 2, yet neither did. And to be honest I don't know why anyone would think that anything would be binding if no deal was reached.

Are you for real? Nothing is binding until the legal document is signed of course. But there is an agreement with a joint statement in December. The EU put it in legal terms a few months later. I would expect and completely understand some arguing on the fine prints but not on the substance.

[Pann]

Phase 2 is under provision phase 1 IS finished and not negotiated again. means if there's no miracle to solve the border issue, NI will have to remain in CM.
Reality as of now would demand you are ok with NI in common market, because UK also ruled out a hard border.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Deleted]

You've quoted a sentence that essentially says that it is hoped that the EU leaders will sign off the transitional period agreement at the EU summit being held this week yet you are going on about May, Rees-Mogg and the DUP?!?

Because none of the EU leaders have an ideological aversion to what's in the text.

[Pann]

Are you for real? Nothing is binding until the legal document is signed of course. But there is an agreement with a joint statement in December. The EU put it in legal terms a few months later. I would expect and completely understand some arguing on the fine prints but not on the substance.

What point are you trying make? Davis simply stated that the deal was not binding, which it was not, and that if there was no deal reached then another border solution would have to found.

- - - Updated - - -

Because none of the EU leaders have an ideological aversion to what's in the text.

Do you have a point?

[Deleted]

What point are you trying make? Davis simply stated that the deal was not binding, which it was not, and that if there was no deal reached then another border solution would have to found.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have a point?

He wasn't making the technical argument that it wasn't legally binding, he was making the substantive point that the things the UK didn't like in there were still subject to negotiations, when they clearly weren't.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a point?

That the DUP will have to weigh in before this is done and dusted, and they aren't exactly, reasonable.

[Pann]

He wasn't making the technical argument that it wasn't legally binding, he was making the substantive point that the things the UK didn't like in there were still subject to negotiations, when they clearly wasn't.

Did you watch the interview? Because that is not true. He was asked what would happen in a no deal situation to which he replied that we would not pay the money and that another solution would need to found for the Irish border as what had been agreed was not binding.

That the DUP will have to weigh in before this is done and dusted, and they aren't exactly, reasonable.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with today's agreement.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with today's agreement.

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...56844319862784
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...58438201520129
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...59685285498880
someone might want to tell Sinn Fein and the DUP that

[Pann]

https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...56844319862784
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...58438201520129
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/...59685285498880

someone might want to tell Sinn Fein and the DUP that

Uhm, okay? What point are you trying to make?

I must say this is amazing ranzino has come up with some utter nonsense, based on some tweets, about the UK Government somehow not agreeing with what it has agreed with because the DUP and JRM, despite having no involvement at this stage, will stop May from agreeing to what her Government has agreed to.

[Noradin]

What point are you trying make? Davis simply stated that the deal was not binding, which it was not, and that if there was no deal reached then another border solution would have to found.

- - - Updated - - -



Do you have a point?

Playing stupid only works for so long, maybe you should take a page out of dribbles book and try out some new and interesting ideas?

[Dizzeeyooo]

Playing stupid only works for so long, maybe you should take a page out of dribbles book and try out some new and interesting ideas?

he has been playing stupid for the vast majority of his time spent in this thread, no reason to think that would stop now

[ranzino]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ransition-deal

Aaaaand the agreement is already under fire home in UK. so who briefed Davis what to do and how much to agree, if almost everybody is so surprised about the outcome ?

[Pann]

he has been playing stupid for the vast majority of his time spent in this thread, no reason to think that would stop now

So what exactly is your point? C'mon you're the clever one here it should be no problem for you to explain it, instead of linking a few tweets, to a thicko like me.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ransition-deal

Aaaaand the agreement is already under fire home in UK. so who briefed Davis what to do and how much to agree, if almost everybody is so surprised about the outcome ?

Right? Some politicians are unhappy with what's been agreed. They'll moan at one another for a while but it will not change what has been agreed.

To be honest it seems like you are trying to see an issue where there is none.

[ranzino]

.....

Right? Some politicians are unhappy with what's been agreed. They'll moan at one another for a while but it will not change what has been agreed.

To be honest it seems like you are trying to see an issue where there is none.

Now that would be nice

[Pann]

Now that would be nice

That is reality. Even if there was to be a vote on what was agreed today, which there is not (there will not be a vote until the exit deal has been negotiated), no-one would jeopardise the ability to sign new trade deals before we have left.