@shadowen Said
Who thought over 20 Tories would cross the floor and join a rebel alliance that includes a Corbyn led Labour. The Lib Dems, SNP and Plaid Cymru are all determined to revoke article 50 at the first possible opportunity. It's clear a number of former Tory MP's (like Hammond and Grieve) are also set firmly against Brexit. Infact Hammond and Grieve said they only crossed the floor and supported the Benn Surrender Act to prevent a no deal exit and to encourage BJ to fully pursue a new deal. And yet here they are today, doing all they can to put the kybosh on any deal BJ might bring back. They are even committed to forcing an extension using the Benn Surrender Act even if Parliament were to pass BJ's deal. Bear in mind of course that the great majority of MP's are remainers (though not all are remoaners). Many would support Labour's referendum esp as remain would be almost certain to win as the Brexit Party, UKIP, ERG, DUP etc would never support May's deal. They would rather remain and start again in their efforts to get the UK out of the EU. So yes, I think there could be the numbers there to push through Labour's referendum. I'm not saying that this will happen, but it certainly could. I think it would be pretty tight one way or the other
You're talking about how each party would view the referendum if it were designed in that specific way. I said that such a referendum would be difficult to get enough support for to begin with. We are talking about two entirely different things here. Why would UKIP, ERG, DUP, etc. even agree to a referendum framed that way in the first place? Why would the parts of Labour that want to leave agree to such a framing? They have no reason to, fighting in Parliament would be preferable to a second vote framed like that.
Quote:
Because remoaners are so sold on "Project Fear", because they find it so compelling, it has become an important part of their overall strategy. The problem is it just hasn't been very successful re getting neutral or leave supporters to back remain. And yet they continue to push it. Having said that, I suppose to some extent you could argue that "Project Fear" has had some form of qualified success in so far that it has been passionately embraced by remoaners. This in turn may have helped convince some of the former Tory MP's to cross the floor. That said I think it's more of an excuse for them to act as they did rather than a reason in and of itself. But ultimately that is speculation as unlike some people who discuss Brexit I don't claim to know what people are really thinking when they say and do different things.
I was unaware that components of a plan gained or lost significance based on how much people believe in them. Silly me thought that significance was based on operational objectives and how crucial to the overall plan each component was.
Quote:
Simple. To flat out ignore the result of the single largest democratic vote in the UK's history right off the bat would have cost the Government votes and power. Better to pretend to support the result of the people's vote whilst quietly working to try and ignore it through endless delays and obstruction dressed up as good will. It's only been since BJ became PM that the remoaner MP's have been forced to step out of the shadows and reveal their true intentions (eg Hammond and Grieve).
Right. Because delaying to this length has done wonders for the Governments votes and power.
Quote:
1. You said "I don't understand how you can claim that the UK having minimum requirements for a deal is not duplicitous, but that the EU having the same is."
I replied with "You SHOW me where I have said that it's ok for the UK to have min acceptable objectives but that it is not ok for the EU to do the same."
You still havent done that. SHOW me where I have said as you claim.
What I have said however are things like:
"i dont think EITHER party issued any ultimatums"
"Personally I find the blame game pointless. It is entirely subjective and ultimately irrelevant"
2. You said: "Oh so if you call the EU's minimal acceptable objectives selfish, that makes them no longer minimal acceptable objectives does it?"
Where did I say this? Again, I have said that playing the blame game is pointless and subjective. You could argue that both sides are being 'selfish' is so far as they both want an outcome that is in their best interests. You however seem to imply that I believe that the EU are bad for insisting on min. objectives whilst BJ is good for doing the same thing. So SHOW me where I have said something along these lines. QUOTE me.
Okay so let's clear something up here then. When you said earlier that:
Quote:
"It is interesting that the EU gave May a deal they must have known had no chance of being accepted. A deal that would have left the UK trapped in the EU for an indefinite period of time. And yet EU lovers claim that Barnier and co were being fair and reasonable."
Here. You were not, in fact, saying that Barnier and co were being unfair and unreasonable? You were not implying that they were being selfish? You were not attempting to blame the EU for why May's Deal was not acceptable?
Quote:
3. You said: "Or the implication in multiple posts that because the EU is being selfish, it's largely their fault that negotiations are where they are?"
See previous.
Also
Here.
Quote:
Their resolve not to compromise their so called 'values' hasnt been tested as they have known from the start that the UK won't leave without a deal.
"So called" values? As in not really values? As in they are not negotiating in good faith?
Not to mention the repeated posts accusing the Rebel Alliance and the EU of working together to stop and reverse Brexit. Such as post# 159
Quote:
I think that whether or not the EU decide to enter into serious negotiations with BJ will be dependent upon how likely they think it is that the UK will be able to leave on the 31st of October without a deal. The EU do not want the UK to leave. You have Jo Swinson writing to Juncker urging him not to accept any deal put forward by BJ. You have others within the rebel alliance telling the EU that they can stop BJ taking the UK out of the EU. IF they believe Parliament can stop BJ then I believe they will not accept any changes to May's deal and instead put their trust in the rebel alliance and their efforts to prevent the UK from leaving. If on the other hand they think that BJ could actually take the UK out at the end of the month without a deal then I think they will negotiate. At the moment it seems that the EU is unsure if the rebel alliance really can stop BJ. Compare how they have treated BJ's proposal to how they treated May's attempts to re-negotiate.
Quote:
So come on then, what are these multiple posts. You are claiming I hold a position that you never back up. QUOTE me. I'm not like someone else who sees everything in black and white. BJ bad, EU good. A variation of something out of Animal Farm. Again, for the upteenth time, I do NOT claim that either party is more to blame than the other re where negotiations are currently at. If for example someone offers you a bad deal and you accept it that's on you. If two parties want different things and can't find an acceptable middle ground that's just how it is. Apportioning blame (as I have said repeatedly) is pointless and entirely subjective.
The blame game is pointless? You have done nothing but play a blame game this entire time. You have blamed 'remoaners', the rebels, the EU, pretty much everyone involved except Brexit backers in line with Johnson. In fact, we got into a long argument about 'who' was to blame. You're telling me that when you say things like "(the Lib Dems and Labour) are the reason there is a 'zombie Parliament' at the moment"
here that you're not blaming them for the state of Parliament and by extension, the state of the negotiations?
Quote:
I don't think one side has been more 'selfish' than the other. This is to do with the blame game which I have previously called pointless and subjective. You however seem to be saying that the UK has been more "selfish in pursuit of it's own goals" than the EU. What do you base this on? Where is your 'evidence'?
What would you call a government negotiating a proposal, failing to enact that proposal, and coming back to ask for a better one?
Quote:
Leaving N.I in the single market is very obviously a concession to the EU. The UK want to leave as a whole. The EU don't want N.I to leave. What BJ has proposed is a concession to the EU.
Not (apparently) according to Merkel and others. Still, nice that you KNOW what the 'EU' think.
In comparison to both the UK and the EU, NI literally serves no strategic or commercial purpose other than as a buffer. In what value could there possibly be in keeping it?
Quote:
Explain to me how the EU would be "subject to international repercussions from violating the GFA" when they arent even signatories to the GFA. How can you violate a treaty you have never signed? How exactly does that work?
ROI is part of the EU. If ROI violates the GFA it will undoubtedly drag the EU into its mess. Especially since they would be violating an issue partly revolving around trade. A subject that involves the entirety of the EU and not just Ireland.
Perception is just as important in international politics as it is in national politics.
Quote:
That's your opinion. I believe it's a means to an end. Ultimately only people like Barnier know where the truth lies.
My oath it would matter. Then it would simply be a case of he said, she said. IMO the burden of proof lies with the person making the allegation. So if Merkel came out and said "no I never said such a thing" then I personally would give her the benefit of the doubt. Not because I believe her more than BJ but because I think, as I stated, that the burden of proof would lie with him.
Fine. And I did ask how you would react. Personally I find that a nonsense position, but that's neither here nor there. Personally I think burden of proof should apply regardless of whether or not Merkel says anything about it. Whether or not Boris is telling the truth should be the issue here, not whether or not Merkel responded to it.
I will say this though. Distracting and devolving into a 'he said she said' argument is probably not a productive path for either party
Quote:
Time will tell.
The PoC only have to/can only prepare for what is in it's control. They know what factors effect the flow of traffic once it reaches their jurisdiction and they have planned for a whole range of variables. Only the Yellowsnow authors didnt bother to inquire as to what their No Deal plans were.
There are two key assumptions made by yellowsnow in this area. One, that there will be a large number of HGVs that will not have the correct 'paperwork' AND two, that there will be "limited space in French Ports (primarily Calais) to hold unready HGVs". This in turn could reduce the flow rate by "40-60%" as "unready HGVs will fill the ports and block flow". That is what yellowsnow says. So let's look at that. First up, if you are projecting a possible worse case scenario then assuming 4-5 months out that no more HGVs will be cross border compliant is not unreasonable. However, the problems with the report start with what comes next. Yellowsnow explicitly states that there will be "limited space in French Ports (primarily Calais) to hold unready HGVs". They say this without having visited the Ports and without having spoken to the Port Authorities. By far the biggest Port is Calais and they have built (did so last year) very large holding areas AWAY from the Port to hold unready HGVs. So what they have actually done is the complete opposite of what the authors of yellowsnow claim. Yellowsnow goes on and says that "unready HGVs will fill the ports and block flow". Based on what? Limited space for unready HGVs? We know there is plenty of space. Based on computer simulations? Nope. Based on talking to the PoC? Nope. Based on visiting the PoC? Again no. Furthermore, as previously stated the PoC have stress tested their no deal preparations multiple times, both via computer simulations and by using trucks on the ground. Their conclusion is there will NOT be any clogging of the Port, NO "block flow".
No it couldn't. Yellowsnow assumes unready HGVs will block the main Ports due to their numbers and a lack of space. Calais is far and away the largest French Port. They have built brand new, and very extensive areas AWAY from the Port for customs checks to avoid any notable congestion. They have also recruited more than 700 extra customs officers, and implemented and tested a brand new computerised “smart border”. They have actually claimed on numerous occasions that people will not be able to tell the difference btw the last day the UK is in the EU and the first day that it isnt. As for Dover, the CEO has said that "The port of Dover is fully ready for Brexit". Now does that mean there will definitely be NO delays? The French are very confident. Dover understandably takes a slightly more conservative approach. But based on their public comments both the PoD and the PoC Authorities seem extremely confident their ports will not be filled by unready HGVs that would block flow. Now had the yellowsnow authors bothered to visit the ports in question, and speak to the authorities, they would have known what preparations had been undertaken and what stress testing had been done. But instead they remained in their comfortable offices and wrote their report based on what? A hunch? Fantasy? Hope? Certainly not on known facts. In short no report that ignores key facts can be called reasonable. It just can't.
Anyway, I have said plenty about yellowsnow and cant be bothered going on and on about the same things. You and I have a different view re it's worth and I for one am happy to leave it at that.
Fine. Suit yourself. I would like to say one thing myself though.
You maintain that yellow hammer is worthless because it doesn't take into account mitigating factors. I would like to counter and say that an analysis that doesn't take into account mitigating factors is useful as a 'what if' scenario. Such as 'what if the governments attempts to mitigate fall through the floor and fail?'
I honestly don't know what their chances of success are, but it never hurts to have a backup plan.