[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kronik85]

Ad hominem, Pann. You can do better.

I thought we were at "bantz". In saying this I really need to stop wandering into other peoples conversations with "what he meant was....".

[Pann]

I thought we were at "bantz". In saying this I really need to stop wandering into other peoples conversations with "what he meant was....".

So did I. Guess not...

[LeGin Tufnel]

Who has a cross to bear?

It’s not me, dude.

At least I’ve approached this issue with a modicum of good faith.

Can you say the same?

[Dizzeeyooo]

You rightly said that the EU could not just blindly trust the UK not to diverge standards yet, as far as many British people are concerned, the UK is being asked to blindly trust the EU.

The EU does not want the backstop to come into effect either, it gives an extraordinary economic advantage to Northern Ireland by allowing it complete access to both the EU and UK markets and is not something that would ever normally be offered - but then Northern Ireland is hardly normal and the EU is committed to the GFA (unlike the DUP and large elements of the Conservative Party).

Idiotic brexity politicians in the UK (and idiots like you who parrot their pathetic arguments as if they are worth repeating) need to spend less time complaining about the evil backstop, and more time seriously thinking about what the UK is going to do to remove the requirement for the backstop while still maintaining the GFA, once any transition period ends (outside of going to war with the EU, which is presumably the Mark 'thick as shit and too stupid to realise it' Francois solution).

[Kronik85]

The EU does not want the backstop to come into effect either, it gives an extraordinary economic advantage to Northern Ireland by allowing it complete access to both the EU and UK markets and is not something that would ever normally be offered - but then Northern Ireland is hardly normal and the EU is committed to the GFA (unlike the DUP and large elements of the Conservative Party).

Idiotic brexity politicians in the UK (and idiots like you who parrot their pathetic arguments as if they are worth repeating) need to spend less time complaining about the evil backstop, and more time seriously thinking about what the UK is going to do to remove the requirement for the backstop while still maintaining the GFA, once any transition period ends (outside of going to war with the EU, which is presumably the Mark 'thick as shit and too stupid to realise it' Francois solution).

I'm just going to say this because we had a fairly constructive dialog going tonight before it devolved into mud slinging in the hope that we can avoid pages of bickering when people get back into the thread tomorrow. Pann isn't a Brexiteer and he was putting the argument down for what I can only assume was academic reasons. It's bad enough when the burner gets on and starts calling every one cunts, lets at least stop with the insults to fellow posters when people are just presenting the argument.

In saying that, Mark Francois also seems to be a rather odious piece of shit. It's unsurprising that he ranks so highly within the ERG.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Pann isn't a Brexiteer

Biggest joke in this thread (outside of Brexit, obviously )

Fortunately he has had me blocked for the last two years, so it is very doubtful that any faux outrage is coming tomorrow (towards me anyway, presumably @LeGin Tufnel will not be so lucky)

when people are just presenting the argument.

At this point, repeating and reinforcing a nonsensical argument is equally as disingenuous as creating that argument in the first place.

[Kronik85]

Biggest joke in this thread (outside of Brexit, obviously )

Fortunately he has had me blocked for the last two years, so it is very doubtful that any fake outrage is coming tomorrow (towards me anyway, presumably @LeGin Tufnel will not be so lucky)

You do you but they claim to have voted Remain and all I see is someone with penchant for playing devil's advocate. But you do you and I'm done interjecting myself between other posters.

At this point, repeating and reinforcing a nonsensical argument is equally as disingenuous as creating that argument in the first place.

I don't think we are well served pretending that when placed in adversarial role the EU has any reason to treat the UK favourably. Coming back to what you are saying about NI being placed in an amazing situation if the backstop were to be triggered though, you need to get on the phone to Sammy and Arlene because that was their last manifesto and yet they keep voting the WA down.

[Dizzeeyooo]

I don't think we are well served pretending that when placed in adversarial role the EU has any reason to treat the UK favourably.

Brexiters are the only ones claiming that the EU is our enemy in this process - can you give examples of where the EU has treated the UK "unfavorably" so far, outside of their own rules on what is possible for non member states?

Coming back to what you are saying about NI being placed in an amazing situation if the backstop were to be triggered though, you need to get on the phone to Sammy and Arlene because that was their last manifesto and yet they keep voting the WA down.

Is this a Pann style joke or do you actually not understand the motivations of the DUP?

[Slant]

I am not supporting this position. However what happens if the UK finds a better solution to the Irish border and the EU rejects it? Or talks fail because Spain insists on trying to take control of Gibraltar? Or Macron makes good on using it as lever?

You rightly said that the EU could not just blindly trust the UK not to diverge standards yet, as far as many British people are concerned, the UK is being asked to blindly trust the EU.

As far as I can see, it is a shit solution to an unsolvable problem.

The UK had 3 years to come up with a better solution. The best thing they came up with was the backstop. Since the EU couldn't think of anything better, they accepted. If anyone has a better idea, I'm pretty fucking certain the EU would accept it at this point.

However, the problem is not really that difficult to understand:

1. The UK wants to keep the union intact.
2. The GFA demands no border between RoI and NI.
3. The UK wants to close all borders to the EU.
4. The border between RoI and NI is a border of the EU/UK.

Wait, I'll boil this down so even Dribs gets it: The UK wants to both close and open the border between RoI and NI simultaneously. But only for stuff they like.

This is a gordic knot. It's a textbook example of a gordic knot. Solve it and you may well get the peace nobel prize.

[Kronik85]

Brexiters are the only ones claiming that the EU is our enemy in this process - can you give examples of where the EU has treated the UK unfavorably so far?

Did I say they have? Why do you think that when/if the UK leaves the EU that the EU is under any obligation to treat the UK favourably? I'm pretty sure Slant and Acidbaron will have fun debating this with you.

Is this a Pann style joke or do you actually not understand the motivations of the DUP?

It was a joke, but it's also in their manifesto if you care to read the section on Brexit (that being a privileged position as an intermediary between the UK and the EU).

[Dizzeeyooo]

Why do you think that when/if the UK leaves the EU that the EU is under any obligation to treat the UK favourably?

When did I say that?

but it's also in their manifesto if you care to read the section on Brexit (that being a privileged position as an intermediary between the UK and the EU).

"privileged position as an intermediary between the UK and the EU" apparently does not mean "different from the rest of the UK in any way" - apart from abortion rules and women's rights legislation obviously

[Slant]

The EU does not want the backstop to come into effect either, it gives an extraordinary economic advantage to Northern Ireland by allowing it complete access to both the EU and UK markets and is not something that would ever normally be offered - but then Northern Ireland is hardly normal and the EU is committed to the GFA (unlike the DUP and large elements of the Conservative Party).

Idiotic brexity politicians in the UK (and idiots like you who parrot their pathetic arguments as if they are worth repeating) need to spend less time complaining about the evil backstop, and more time seriously thinking about what the UK is going to do to remove the requirement for the backstop while still maintaining the GFA, once any transition period ends (outside of going to war with the EU, which is presumably the Mark 'thick as shit and too stupid to realise it' Francois solution).

Unlike the limited access they have to both the EU and the UK right now? Oh wait... yep, that's what we call a flaw in your logic. The EU doesn't give two shits about giving access to NI or the UK. It's what the EU always wanted. If the UK wants to give up voting rights and control over regulations in favour of "taking back control" (that's some British thinking right there), while at the same time following EU rules and basically everything "trade" staying the same... heck, that's not the worst outcome.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Unlike the limited access they have to both the EU and the UK right now? Oh wait... yep, that's what we call a flaw in your logic

As in, an advantage compared to the rest of the UK in a hypothetical future where the UK signs the withdrawal agreement, spends the transition period complaining about how unfair the withdrawal agreement is, and then exits the EU into a bare minimum customs union while NI remains in the backstop.

[Kronik85]

When did I say that?

Because you're saying that the Brexiteer argument that the EU could trap us in the backstop because as everyone agrees, the NI/RoI border issue is unsolvable is disingenuous bunk.

However if we are talking at cross purposes here and we actually agree that if we Brexit then counting on the EU to play nice with the backstop would be naive at best then, cool. :thumbsup:

[Gibblewink]

The irony is that WA v2 actually proposed a neutral arbitration for the backstop ensuring that BOTH sides acted in good faith, but of course the HoC rejected that as well.....

[Dizzeeyooo]

Because you're saying that the Brexiteer argument that the EU could trap us in the backstop because as everyone agrees, the NI/RoI border issue is unsolvable is disingenuous bunk.

I'm saying that because it is disingenuous bunk.

If they don't want the backstop, they can propose something else that exists today that solves the NI problem, and the backstop will never need to be triggered. They can't do that (because nothing else does exist today) but can't admit that, so instead they resort to talking crap about "the UK being trapped in the backstop".

However if we are talking at cross purposes here and we actually agree that if we Brexit then counting on the EU to play nice with the backstop would be naive at best then, cool. :thumbsup:

You realise there is a 3rd option between favorably and unfavorably, right?

[Kronik85]

I'm saying that because it is disingenuous bunk. If they don't want the backstop, they can propose something else that exists today that solves the NI problem, and the backstop will never need to be triggered.

The ERG have a highly confrontational view of the EU. They believe that if the EU can exploit us, they will exploit us. They believe that now even whilst we are a part of it for heavens sake. It doesn't make them wrong on the issue though, it's still a legitimate theoretical. The difference between you and them is that you believe the EU wouldn't and they believe it would.

You realise there is a 3rd option between favorably and unfavorably, right?

Not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Baring your throat to a potential adversary is irresponsible statecraft. You cannot count on the goodwill of your competitors. The PD is, non binding, it's within the powers of both the EU and the next UK Govt to turn this nasty if they so wish.

[Dizzeeyooo]

The ERG have a highly confrontational view of the EU. They believe that if the EU can exploit us, they will exploit us. They believe that now even whilst we are a part of it for heavens sake. It doesn't make them wrong on the issue though, it's still a legitimate theoretical. The difference between you and them is that you believe the EU wouldn't and they believe it would.

Good for the ERG. Why does anyone not in the ERG (and/or not still clinging to a unicorn Brexit) care?

Not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

Believe me, outside of you trying to defend Pann the feeling is mutual.

Baring your throat to a potential adversary is irresponsible statecraft.

And now you sound like Mark Francois, trying to fill empty space with pointless soundbites.

[Kronik85]

Good for the ERG. Why does anyone not in the ERG (and/or not still clinging to a unicorn Brexit) care?

Tell me why you believe that the backstop isn't a legitimate threat to UK sovereignty then? Geoffrey Cox couldn't sign off on it and he's the AG.

[Slant]

As in, an advantage compared to the rest of the UK in a hypothetical future where the UK signs the withdrawal agreement, spends the transition period complaining about how unfair the withdrawal agreement is, and then exits the EU into a bare minimum customs union while NI remains in the backstop.

The only backstop seriously on the table is keeping the UK as a whole in the agreement. You can't split the union. The EU realises that. Unlike the UK, the EU has no truck with fantasies.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell me why you believe that the backstop isn't a legitimate threat to UK sovereignty then? Geoffrey Cox couldn't sign off on it and he's the AG.

It is, but from all the shitty options, it's the least shitty option, simply sacrificing the Brexiteers fantasy of "sovereignity" for a solution that actually keeps everything else working and intact.

Still think we should end it this Friday, though. It time to end this.