Business & Finance0 min ago
Finally, The Penny Drops!
106 Answers
https:/
So will they just let no deal happen or start negotiating?
So will they just let no deal happen or start negotiating?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Perhaps the EU noticed that a great many MPs explained how unacceptable the Backstop was but then voted in favour of it anyway. Including Boris Johnson, for that matter. Maybe they will break and vote for it again, in larger numbers? Or maybe not. But, in any case, the EU holds the major topic for negotiation is something you hold to be absolutely necessary and indispensable. As far as I can see the Backstop is something that UK politicians have seized on as a convenient punching bag, so the position of opposing it is less logical. If you amended the Withdrawal Agreement so that it only kicked in if negotiations had failed five years after Exit Day then the chances of the Backstop kicking in would be far less.
If they think we’re leaving without a deal then what would be the point of ... trying to do a deal (!)
The EU have been preparing for this for months - and is better prepared than we are.
It’s worth repeating for the umpteenth time: the reason we’ve not left yet is up to us: we’ve asked for extensions and they’ve been granted. If we don’t ask for another we will be out.
There will be no last minute begging us to stay and actually it will be quite amusing to see that finally sink in.
The EU have been preparing for this for months - and is better prepared than we are.
It’s worth repeating for the umpteenth time: the reason we’ve not left yet is up to us: we’ve asked for extensions and they’ve been granted. If we don’t ask for another we will be out.
There will be no last minute begging us to stay and actually it will be quite amusing to see that finally sink in.
Ah ich the classic deliberate mis representing of the n
on dems!
"if they think we’re leaving without a deal then what would be the point of ... trying to do a deal (!)" - we are prepared to leave with no deal but would rather do an acceptable deal, but you knew that.
"The EU have been preparing for this for months - and is better prepared than we are." - yes, initially we sent "negotiators" that sided with the opposition not any more
"It’s worth repeating for the umpteenth time: the reason we’ve not left yet is up to us: we’ve asked for extensions and they’ve been granted. If we don’t ask for another we will be out." - agreed, we should have left with no deal in march, we will leave with no deal on Halloween if necessary.
"There will be no last minute begging us to stay and actually it will be quite amusing to see that finally sink in. " - Agreed, I am so looking forward to throwing off our chains on 1st Nov and watching the remoaners whining for the next 25 years.
on dems!
"if they think we’re leaving without a deal then what would be the point of ... trying to do a deal (!)" - we are prepared to leave with no deal but would rather do an acceptable deal, but you knew that.
"The EU have been preparing for this for months - and is better prepared than we are." - yes, initially we sent "negotiators" that sided with the opposition not any more
"It’s worth repeating for the umpteenth time: the reason we’ve not left yet is up to us: we’ve asked for extensions and they’ve been granted. If we don’t ask for another we will be out." - agreed, we should have left with no deal in march, we will leave with no deal on Halloween if necessary.
"There will be no last minute begging us to stay and actually it will be quite amusing to see that finally sink in. " - Agreed, I am so looking forward to throwing off our chains on 1st Nov and watching the remoaners whining for the next 25 years.
But it isn't reasonable at all to refuse to dispense with the backstop. It's clear it must only be there, knowing it will be unacceptable, to ensure a no-deal. But I agree, there's nothing to negotiate while they insist on their spoiler. God only knows why both sides keep agreeing on extensions and prolonging the uncertainty. Clearly neither side is capable of the job entasked to them. All the EU had to do was say they will 4efuse to negotiate properly when A50 was kicked off, so both sides could then mutually agree not to waste the time.
The Backstop only became part of the Deal because of the UK's own negotiating position, in particular with respect to a desire to leave the Customs Union as soon as possible. The EU initially proposed a UK-wide backstop, which is more or less a suggestion that if we can't do a trade deal in time then let's just keep the old rules until both sides are ready, and this was rejected. The EU and UK then agreed that the mean problem is the Irish border, so reduced the backstop arrangements to just Northern Ireland.
In that sense the Backstop *can* be dispensed with, but only if the UK accepts either that (a) they won't leave the Customs Union, at least not for the time being, or (b) they will try to leave the CU by seeking a new set of trading arrangements, but if a new deal isn't agreed then there's a UK-wide "backstop" until there is.
In that sense the Backstop *can* be dispensed with, but only if the UK accepts either that (a) they won't leave the Customs Union, at least not for the time being, or (b) they will try to leave the CU by seeking a new set of trading arrangements, but if a new deal isn't agreed then there's a UK-wide "backstop" until there is.
which is more or less a suggestion that if we can't do a trade deal in time then let's just keep the old rules thus ensuring the UK continues to remain until both sides, not just one, decide that the UK can leave. Such a ridiculous suggestion that it was inevitably rejected. The EU should have been too embarrassed to even think of it let alone suggest it.
On Exit day we'd leave the EU. Afterwards we'd negotiate trade deal to leave the CU. It would clearly be in the EU's interest to reach new arrangements -- otherwise, they'd be effectively dragging around a dead weight all the time (from their point of view), and be unable to move forward effectively.
It's a nonsense to suggest or imply that the backstop is meant to be a deliberate trap to keep us in forever. It's manifestly not. It is just an insurance policy should the worst happen. Actually it's an insurance policy for *both* sides, and disadvantageous for both sides, to see it ever kick in.
It's a nonsense to suggest or imply that the backstop is meant to be a deliberate trap to keep us in forever. It's manifestly not. It is just an insurance policy should the worst happen. Actually it's an insurance policy for *both* sides, and disadvantageous for both sides, to see it ever kick in.
For some years I have been living in a residential block but am now am moving out of town. Several times over I have managed to obtain special dispensations regarding facilities and services - I am after all rather special. I told the committee that runs all the common facilities that I was moving and that I intended to keep using some of the facilities and that I expected to be able to call on some services also. The so-and-sos set certain conditions but my wife would not accept them (actually, I expected as much and also was not overly keen either because my garage had to be accessible by the committee). Now they tell me that since I have not accepted the conditions all the locks will be changed and I will neither get any service or be able to use any of the facilities. I now expect they will at last give me what I want.
Karl is just hoping to pretend that his tale of an individual moving has some simularity to trading nations changing their relationship. It's a dodgy form of propaganda that will convince few. Clearly one cannot legitimately compare an individual buying service from a service supplier to an agreement between nations to benefit each other and continue to do so in a different way if agreement can be reached. One would need to be 'special' to give that any credence.
