Discussion:
David Davis on Question Time
(too old to reply)
MM
2018-12-14 11:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!

Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?

MM
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-14 12:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating' was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.

Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
Norman Wells
2018-12-14 13:56:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating' was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to the
UK parliament. Simple fact.
The Todal
2018-12-14 14:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating' was
so perfunctory.  Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the
past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to the
UK parliament.  Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British MPs
think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the fallout from
a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?

I suppose they can wait patiently for a few months until Britain comes
grovelling back, begging for some favours.

Still, it won't happen, will it? Mercedes and BMW won't let it happen,
will they?
Norman Wells
2018-12-14 15:23:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating'
was so perfunctory.  Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the
past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to
the UK parliament.  Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British MPs
think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the fallout from
a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards over
the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?

Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for both
sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.

If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so and
walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an option,
whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal is better than
a bad deal.

But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests therefore
to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
Post by The Todal
I suppose they can wait patiently for a few months until Britain comes
grovelling back, begging for some favours.
Still, it won't happen, will it? Mercedes and BMW won't let it happen,
will they?
It won't happen if there's no mutual benefit to be gained, or if one
side is utterly intransigent. There has to be movement towards an
acceptable outcome for both sides.
Pamela
2018-12-14 21:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there
will be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over
and that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said
they might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before
we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating'
was so perfunctory.  Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in
the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to
the UK parliament.  Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British
MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the
fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so and
walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal is
better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.

We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
I suppose they can wait patiently for a few months until Britain
comes grovelling back, begging for some favours.
Still, it won't happen, will it? Mercedes and BMW won't let it
happen, will they?
It won't happen if there's no mutual benefit to be gained, or if one
side is utterly intransigent. There has to be movement towards an
acceptable outcome for both sides.
Mutual benefit is not required - especially if one side has the upper
hand. The weaker side will try to stem its losses.

What a mess.
Norman Wells
2018-12-14 22:58:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there
will be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over
and that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said
they might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before
we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating'
was so perfunctory.  Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in
the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to
the UK parliament.  Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British
MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the
fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so and
walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal is
better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its
interests to negotiate further.

39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.

It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side will
lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial deal to be
reached.

A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins' and
one that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to reach a deal
in the first place and to make it work.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
I suppose they can wait patiently for a few months until Britain
comes grovelling back, begging for some favours.
Still, it won't happen, will it? Mercedes and BMW won't let it
happen, will they?
It won't happen if there's no mutual benefit to be gained, or if one
side is utterly intransigent. There has to be movement towards an
acceptable outcome for both sides.
Mutual benefit is not required - especially if one side has the upper
hand. The weaker side will try to stem its losses.
No. It will just walk away and there will be no deal. Then both sides
lose. And that's very silly when that's unnecessary.
Post by Pamela
What a mess.
Negotiations are still in progress. We'll see what transpires. If the
talks fail, however, the blame will lie squarely with the EU that has
been utterly intransigent and unprepared to move towards a possible
settlement.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-15 10:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading agreement
we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed settlement of our
contributions into various EU projects and enterprises that we are
presently engaged in, or would have been engaged in the near future.
We'd effectively be in breach of contract if we refused to cough up -
and this would not bode well for any future agreements with the EU -
and, in fact, many other potential trading partners in the rest of the
world.
--
Ian
Pamela
2018-12-15 11:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of contract
if we refused to cough up - and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment through
whatever courts we recognise and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments entered
into.

Half baked Brexit ideas are certainly changing Britain - for the worse.

Fortunately Parliament has taken back control and we're now extremely
unlikely to have a No Deal Brexit or a hard Brexit.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-15 12:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of contract
if we refused to cough up -
A classic use of the word "effectively" to mean "not".
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment through
whatever courts we recognise
What courts would these be, bonehead?
Post by Pamela
and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments entered
into.
What commitments have we entered into?
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 13:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of contract
if we refused to cough up -
A classic use of the word "effectively" to mean "not".
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment through
whatever courts we recognise
What courts would these be, bonehead?
Plenty of options: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_arbitration
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments entered
into.
What commitments have we entered into?
Paying the pensions of Brits employed by the EU for instance. I am sure there is a full breakdown somewhere, but I am fed up of Googling plain facts for Brextremists in total denial of any of them.
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Pamela
2018-12-15 14:06:53 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 12:10:01 UTC, The Marquis Saint
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
On 10:49 15 Dec 2018, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up -
A classic use of the word "effectively" to mean "not".
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment
through whatever courts we recognise
What courts would these be, bonehead?
Plenty of options: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_arbitration
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments
entered into.
What commitments have we entered into?
Paying the pensions of Brits employed by the EU for instance. I am
sure there is a full breakdown somewhere, but I am fed up of Googling
plain facts for Brextremists in total denial of any of them.
I think he misread my posts in so many ways. Sigh.
Pamela
2018-12-15 14:06:18 UTC
Permalink
On 12:03 15 Dec 2018, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up -
A classic use of the word "effectively" to mean "not".
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment
through whatever courts we recognise
What courts would these be, bonehead?
Whichever ones we recognise. Did you miss that in what I wrote? Did
you think it meant nothing? Oh dear. Re-read it with an open mind this
time. Go on. Try it. It isn't hard.
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments
entered into.
What commitments have we entered into?
Do you know what "would" means? I get the impression you are semi-
literate. Why parade that here?
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 12:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of contract
if we refused to cough up - and this would not bode well for any
future agreements with the EU - and, in fact, many other potential
trading partners in the rest of the world.
If we renege on the payment then the EU could pursue us for payment through
whatever courts we recognise
The only problem with that is that they'd need legal grounds.
Post by Pamela
and we would damage our international
reputation as a trading partner unwilling to pay for commitments entered
into.
Half baked Brexit ideas are certainly changing Britain - for the worse.
Fortunately Parliament has taken back control and we're now extremely
unlikely to have a No Deal Brexit or a hard Brexit.
They'll have to be pretty quick then about agreeing some alternative.
If there's no deal agreed between the UK and the EU by 29 March next
year, we crash out anyway in accordance with the default provisions in
the Lisbon Treaty, and you can call that what you like.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 12:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just for
starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading agreement
we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed settlement of our
contributions into various EU projects and enterprises that we are
presently engaged in, or would have been engaged in the near future.
We'd effectively be in breach of contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.

If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any future agreements with the EU -
and, in fact, many other potential trading partners in the rest of the
world.
Why should we have to pay for anything from which we will get nothing in
return?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 12:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just for
starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading agreement
we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed settlement of our
contributions into various EU projects and enterprises that we are
presently engaged in, or would have been engaged in the near future.
We'd effectively be in breach of contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
and this would not bode well for any future agreements with the EU -
and, in fact, many other potential trading partners in the rest of the
world.
Why should we have to pay for anything from which we will get nothing in
return?
See above - it is all itemised.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 14:21:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just for
starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading agreement
we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed settlement of our
contributions into various EU projects and enterprises that we are
presently engaged in, or would have been engaged in the near future.
We'd effectively be in breach of contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll have
to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws sponsorship.
There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which we will see no
benefit. So, there's no reason for us to be paying for EU foreign aid
or EU research projects. We've already poured billions into the Galileo
project for example to which the EU seems only too willing to deny us
access. Perhaps we should demand our contributions back?

As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we didn't
fall for that one. 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', we
said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that had been its
position too.
Pamela
2018-12-15 14:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just for
starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be
contractual, there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing,
we don't have to pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we
have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the
pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll
have to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws
sponsorship. There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which
we will see no benefit.
The benefit may have been in the past. In the same way, at a restuarant
a customer pays after eating ameal and doesn't ask "What will I get if I
pay you?"
Post by Norman Wells
So, there's no reason for us to be paying for
EU foreign aid or EU research projects. We've already poured billions
into the Galileo project for example to which the EU seems only too
willing to deny us access. Perhaps we should demand our contributions
back?
I doubt there is a provision in any agreement for such a refund.
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
The EU isn't set up to be like a company.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on
its three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon
there being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything
is agreed' means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and
was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we
didn't fall for that one.
"Samali slicing" is not a dirty trick. It is a valid negotiating
technique. You need to stop adopting a childish point of view. Or just
let the adults get on wth it without your moaning.
Post by Norman Wells
'Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed', we said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that
had been its position too.
That point was included in the arrangements to stop British cherry
picking. The British tried to twist that point around to have another
meaning to keep a domestic audience happy.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 14:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just for
starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be
contractual, there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing,
we don't have to pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we
have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the
pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll
have to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws
sponsorship. There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which
we will see no benefit.
The benefit may have been in the past. In the same way, at a restuarant
a customer pays after eating ameal and doesn't ask "What will I get if I
pay you?"
'Earmarked' means for something in the future. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
So, there's no reason for us to be paying for
EU foreign aid or EU research projects. We've already poured billions
into the Galileo project for example to which the EU seems only too
willing to deny us access. Perhaps we should demand our contributions
back?
I doubt there is a provision in any agreement for such a refund.
Nor for not giving one.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
The EU isn't set up to be like a company.
Since it employs people, which the expression 'employees of the EU' kind
of implies, it clearly is.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on
its three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon
there being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything
is agreed' means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and
was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we
didn't fall for that one.
"Samali slicing" is not a dirty trick. It is a valid negotiating
technique. You need to stop adopting a childish point of view. Or just
let the adults get on wth it without your moaning.
It's a dirty trick, of the kind played on little old ladies by ruthless
car salesmen. If you have the slightest understanding of negotiating,
however, it's so easy to avoid that it takes a really ludicrous and
patronising negotiator even to try it on.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
'Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed', we said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that
had been its position too.
That point was included in the arrangements to stop British cherry
picking. The British tried to twist that point around to have another
meaning to keep a domestic audience happy.
No, it has exactly the same meaning. We used it to stop the EU
cherry-picking.
Pamela
2018-12-15 15:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just
for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be
contractual, there has to be consideration. If we will get
nothing, we don't have to pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things
we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the
pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll
have to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws
sponsorship. There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which
we will see no benefit.
The benefit may have been in the past. In the same way, at a
restuarant a customer pays after eating ameal and doesn't ask "What
will I get if I pay you?"
'Earmarked' means for something in the future. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
So, there's no reason for us to be paying for
EU foreign aid or EU research projects. We've already poured
billions into the Galileo project for example to which the EU seems
only too willing to deny us access. Perhaps we should demand our
contributions back?
I doubt there is a provision in any agreement for such a refund.
Nor for not giving one.
I think you mean "paying".
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
The EU isn't set up to be like a company.
Since it employs people, which the expression 'employees of the EU'
kind of implies, it clearly is.
The government employs people but the government isn't constituted like
a company.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU
to discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up
forever on its three original requirements. But it was always
conditional upon there being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed
until everything is agreed' means. And that was the stated
position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting
and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip
later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early
in order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we
didn't fall for that one.
"Samali slicing" is not a dirty trick. It is a valid negotiating
technique. You need to stop adopting a childish point of view. Or
just let the adults get on wth it without your moaning.
It's a dirty trick, of the kind played on little old ladies by
ruthless car salesmen. If you have the slightest understanding of
negotiating, however, it's so easy to avoid that it takes a really
ludicrous and patronising negotiator even to try it on.
There are dozens and dozens of negotiating techniques. They are not
dirty tricks unless, perhaps, you are blind to them and lose out. Then
you would call the whole negotiation unfair. Come to think of it,
that's exactly what you are doing. Oh well.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
'Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed', we said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that
had been its position too.
That point was included in the arrangements to stop British cherry
picking. The British tried to twist that point around to have
another meaning to keep a domestic audience happy.
No, it has exactly the same meaning. We used it to stop the EU
cherry-picking.
Some people, you included, have used the phrase to resist provisional
agreement of an individual point.

However the phrase was designed to produce an agreement only of an
overall final package. Provisional agreements of individual points
would feed into the final package to be agreed.

That difference is called twisting the meaning.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 15:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And that's just
for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have been
engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach of
contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be
contractual, there has to be consideration. If we will get
nothing, we don't have to pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things
we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the
pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll
have to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws
sponsorship. There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which
we will see no benefit.
The benefit may have been in the past. In the same way, at a
restuarant a customer pays after eating ameal and doesn't ask "What
will I get if I pay you?"
'Earmarked' means for something in the future. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
So, there's no reason for us to be paying for
EU foreign aid or EU research projects. We've already poured
billions into the Galileo project for example to which the EU seems
only too willing to deny us access. Perhaps we should demand our
contributions back?
I doubt there is a provision in any agreement for such a refund.
Nor for not giving one.
I think you mean "paying".
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
The EU isn't set up to be like a company.
Since it employs people, which the expression 'employees of the EU'
kind of implies, it clearly is.
The government employs people but the government isn't constituted like
a company.
It pays pensions to all its former employees. So too should the EU.
There's no difference.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU
to discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up
forever on its three original requirements. But it was always
conditional upon there being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed
until everything is agreed' means. And that was the stated
position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting
and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip
later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early
in order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we
didn't fall for that one.
"Samali slicing" is not a dirty trick. It is a valid negotiating
technique. You need to stop adopting a childish point of view. Or
just let the adults get on wth it without your moaning.
It's a dirty trick, of the kind played on little old ladies by
ruthless car salesmen. If you have the slightest understanding of
negotiating, however, it's so easy to avoid that it takes a really
ludicrous and patronising negotiator even to try it on.
There are dozens and dozens of negotiating techniques. They are not
dirty tricks unless, perhaps, you are blind to them and lose out. Then
you would call the whole negotiation unfair. Come to think of it,
that's exactly what you are doing. Oh well.
I've never called it unfair, just a bit disreputable and arrogant on the
EU's side, and very poorly handled on ours.

But never mind. Because of the way the negotiations were set up, what
the negotiators agreed doesn't really matter because they don't have the
last word.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
'Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed', we said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that
had been its position too.
That point was included in the arrangements to stop British cherry
picking. The British tried to twist that point around to have
another meaning to keep a domestic audience happy.
No, it has exactly the same meaning. We used it to stop the EU
cherry-picking.
Some people, you included, have used the phrase to resist provisional
agreement of an individual point.
However the phrase was designed to produce an agreement only of an
overall final package. Provisional agreements of individual points
would feed into the final package to be agreed.
That difference is called twisting the meaning.
'Provisional' is 'conditional'. Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed.
Pamela
2018-12-15 18:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Ian Jackson
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum.  And
that's just for starters.
The 39 billion euros has little to do with any future trading
agreement we might have with the EU. Instead, it is an agreed
settlement of our contributions into various EU projects and
enterprises that we are presently engaged in, or would have
been engaged in the near future. We'd effectively be in breach
of contract if we refused to cough up
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be
contractual, there has to be consideration. If we will get
nothing, we don't have to pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things
we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the
pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding
they'll have to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws
sponsorship. There's no reason for us to pay for anything from
which we will see no benefit.
The benefit may have been in the past. In the same way, at a
restuarant a customer pays after eating ameal and doesn't ask "What
will I get if I pay you?"
'Earmarked' means for something in the future. It's a matter of English.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
So, there's no reason for us to be paying for
EU foreign aid or EU research projects. We've already poured
billions into the Galileo project for example to which the EU
seems only too willing to deny us access. Perhaps we should
demand our contributions back?
I doubt there is a provision in any agreement for such a refund.
Nor for not giving one.
I think you mean "paying".
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors.
If they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay
their pensions.
The EU isn't set up to be like a company.
Since it employs people, which the expression 'employees of the EU'
kind of implies, it clearly is.
The government employs people but the government isn't constituted
like a company.
It pays pensions to all its former employees. So too should the EU.
There's no difference.
Of course there are some similarities but fundmentally the EU is not a
company or anything like one. It does not follow that a particualr
requirement on a company must apply to the EU.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU
to discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up
forever on its three original requirements. But it was always
conditional upon there being a deal. It's what 'nothing is
agreed until everything is agreed' means. And that was the
stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting
and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip
later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of
the dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to
get certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone
early in order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for
the EU, we didn't fall for that one.
"Samali slicing" is not a dirty trick. It is a valid negotiating
technique. You need to stop adopting a childish point of view. Or
just let the adults get on wth it without your moaning.
It's a dirty trick, of the kind played on little old ladies by
ruthless car salesmen. If you have the slightest understanding of
negotiating, however, it's so easy to avoid that it takes a really
ludicrous and patronising negotiator even to try it on.
There are dozens and dozens of negotiating techniques. They are not
dirty tricks unless, perhaps, you are blind to them and lose out.
Then you would call the whole negotiation unfair. Come to think of
it, that's exactly what you are doing. Oh well.
I've never called it unfair, just a bit disreputable and arrogant on
the EU's side, and very poorly handled on ours.
But never mind. Because of the way the negotiations were set up, what
the negotiators agreed doesn't really matter because they don't have
the last word.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
'Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed', we said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because
that had been its position too.
That point was included in the arrangements to stop British cherry
picking. The British tried to twist that point around to have
another meaning to keep a domestic audience happy.
No, it has exactly the same meaning. We used it to stop the EU
cherry-picking.
Some people, you included, have used the phrase to resist provisional
agreement of an individual point.
However the phrase was designed to produce an agreement only of an
overall final package. Provisional agreements of individual points
would feed into the final package to be agreed.
That difference is called twisting the meaning.
'Provisional' is 'conditional'. Nothing is agreed until everything is
agreed.
That's right and it does mean interim provisional agreements should not
be made (as you have complained about in the past). In fact without
interim provsional agreement the final agreement does not come together.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 19:14:01 UTC
Permalink
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll have
to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws sponsorship.
There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which we will see no
benefit. So, there's no reason for us to be paying for EU foreign aid
well maybe - we don't derive any direct benefit from foreign aid, but that is a separate argument.
Post by Norman Wells
or EU research projects. We've already poured billions into the Galileo
project for example to which the EU seems only too willing to deny us
access.
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps we should demand our contributions back?
Perhaps I can claim back previous year's insurance because I never claimed.
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
That depends on how they were financed. Either the UK pays the Brits' pensions or puts money into the pension fund to cover future liabilities.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we didn't
fall for that one. 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', we
said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that had been its
position too.
It is hardly a "dirty trick" to assess the current balance of account before starting negotiations on a future relationship, just normal business practice.

If the UK cancelled a major infrastructure or military contract (as if!) then it would look at what had been paid so far and what proportion had been completed.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 21:00:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll have
to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws sponsorship.
There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which we will see no
benefit. So, there's no reason for us to be paying for EU foreign aid
well maybe - we don't derive any direct benefit from foreign aid, but that is a separate argument.
Post by Norman Wells
or EU research projects. We've already poured billions into the Galileo
project for example to which the EU seems only too willing to deny us
access.
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
The Guardian's wrong then when it says

"UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system.

British armed forces will not get access to Galileo, a rival to the US
GPS system, after Brexit"

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system

It's a bit more important than you not driving down dead ends.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps we should demand our contributions back?
Perhaps I can claim back previous year's insurance because I never claimed.
Our Galileo expenditure was an investment into something from which we
fully expected a valuable return. If we are not to get it, we deserve
our investment back.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
That depends on how they were financed. Either the UK pays the Brits' pensions or puts money into the pension fund to cover future liabilities.
Employers, whoever they are, pay pensions. It's their responsibility.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we didn't
fall for that one. 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', we
said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that had been its
position too.
It is hardly a "dirty trick" to assess the current balance of account before starting negotiations on a future relationship, just normal business practice.
If the UK cancelled a major infrastructure or military contract (as if!) then it would look at what had been paid so far and what proportion had been completed.
If you leave a club, you stop making contributions to it. That's
fundamental. And if the club has to cut its coat differently because of
that, that's how it is. We have no continuing liability for anything
from which we will see no benefit in future.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-16 11:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
So you say, but I don't think you're right. For it to be contractual,
there has to be consideration. If we will get nothing, we don't have to
pay.
Of course there is consideration - it is all earmarked for things we have already agreed - from foreign aid, research to paying the pensions of Brit' employees of the EU when they retire.
It may have been 'earmarked', but in the absence of funding they'll have
to be unearmarked, just as when any sponsor withdraws sponsorship.
There's no reason for us to pay for anything from which we will see no
benefit. So, there's no reason for us to be paying for EU foreign aid
well maybe - we don't derive any direct benefit from foreign aid, but that is a separate argument.
Post by Norman Wells
or EU research projects. We've already poured billions into the Galileo
project for example to which the EU seems only too willing to deny us
access.
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
The Guardian's wrong then when it says
"UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system.
British armed forces will not get access to Galileo, a rival to the US
GPS system, after Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system
It's a bit more important than you not driving down dead ends.
Did you read the bit where I said "I can receive it now"? My mobile can see it. It's not a full constellation yet, so a fix 24/7 is not guaranteed. So it is [and will be] available for civilian use.

The argument is about the encrypted bit. The article implies that the UK is pulling out because it won't be involved in the development of the encrypted bits. If they were already there then it would have been, and if they are still to be developed then the UK will not paid towards it.

Just another bit of Brexit bull**** by extremists who want to have their cake and eat it.

In this case like a golfer who quits his / her club, but still expects a say in the redesign of the course.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Perhaps we should demand our contributions back?
Perhaps I can claim back previous year's insurance because I never claimed.
Our Galileo expenditure was an investment into something from which we
fully expected a valuable return. If we are not to get it, we deserve
our investment back.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
As regards the pensions of EU employees, they are normally the
responsibility of the employer not the shareholders or sponsors. If
they've been EU employees, therefore, the EU should surely pay their
pensions.
That depends on how they were financed. Either the UK pays the Brits' pensions or puts money into the pension fund to cover future liabilities.
Employers, whoever they are, pay pensions. It's their responsibility.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If you recall, it was a conditional offer in order to get the EU to
discuss anything to do with trade and not remain hung up forever on its
three original requirements. But it was always conditional upon there
being a deal. It's what 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed'
means. And that was the stated position of both sides.
True, but the "divorce bill" was basically just simple accounting and was pre-agreed so that it did not become a bargaining chip later on.
That's what the EU wanted and tried to achieve, but it's one of the
dirty tricks of negotiating, called salami-slicing, to try to get
certain things agreed to your advantage and written in stone early in
order to remove them from the overall deal. Sadly for the EU, we didn't
fall for that one. 'Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed', we
said. And the EU couldn't argue with that because that had been its
position too.
It is hardly a "dirty trick" to assess the current balance of account before starting negotiations on a future relationship, just normal business practice.
If the UK cancelled a major infrastructure or military contract (as if!) then it would look at what had been paid so far and what proportion had been completed.
If you leave a club, you stop making contributions to it. That's
fundamental. And if the club has to cut its coat differently because of
that, that's how it is. We have no continuing liability for anything
from which we will see no benefit in future.
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 12:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
The Guardian's wrong then when it says
"UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system.
British armed forces will not get access to Galileo, a rival to the US
GPS system, after Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system
It's a bit more important than you not driving down dead ends.
Did you read the bit where I said "I can receive it now"? My mobile can see it. It's not a full constellation yet, so a fix 24/7 is not guaranteed. So it is [and will be] available for civilian use.
If you think we pumped billions into the project just for civilian use,
especially when alternatives for that are readily available, you're
mistaken.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The argument is about the encrypted bit. The article implies that the UK is pulling out because it won't be involved in the development of the encrypted bits. If they were already there then it would have been, and if they are still to be developed then the UK will not paid towards it.
The UK will not be involved in *further* development of the military
bit, and that's the bit that's the reason we've been investing at all.
The UK is not interested in simple systems to stop you driving down dead
ends. Nor would it be proposing its own enormously expensive system to
do that independently in the event the EU does exclude us. It wants the
military bit. Sole purpose of investment.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-16 12:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
The Guardian's wrong then when it says
"UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system.
British armed forces will not get access to Galileo, a rival to the US
GPS system, after Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system
It's a bit more important than you not driving down dead ends.
Did you read the bit where I said "I can receive it now"? My mobile can see it. It's not a full constellation yet, so a fix 24/7 is not guaranteed. So it is [and will be] available for civilian use.
If you think we pumped billions into the project just for civilian use,
especially when alternatives for that are readily available, you're
mistaken.
No I am not the reason was to avoid strategic dependence on the USA for everyday navigation.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The argument is about the encrypted bit. The article implies that the UK is pulling out because it won't be involved in the development of the encrypted bits. If they were already there then it would have been, and if they are still to be developed then the UK will not paid towards it.
The UK will not be involved in *further* development of the military
bit, and that's the bit that's the reason we've been investing at all.
Says who.
Post by Norman Wells
The UK is not interested in simple systems to stop you driving down dead
ends. Nor would it be proposing its own enormously expensive system to
do that independently in the event the EU does exclude us. It wants the
military bit. Sole purpose of investment.
Really? - anyway we have walked out of the development group - our choice - hard cheese - as in poker if you want to stay in the game you have to keep betting.
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 13:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course we benefit from research projects - unlike aid these are NOT altruistic. We will still have access to Galileo - I have it now, but what we won't have is ongoing control, because we left the sponsors.
The Guardian's wrong then when it says
"UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system.
British armed forces will not get access to Galileo, a rival to the US
GPS system, after Brexit"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/brexit-uk-may-never-recover-12bn-invested-in-eu-galileo-satellite-system
It's a bit more important than you not driving down dead ends.
Did you read the bit where I said "I can receive it now"? My mobile can see it. It's not a full constellation yet, so a fix 24/7 is not guaranteed. So it is [and will be] available for civilian use.
If you think we pumped billions into the project just for civilian use,
especially when alternatives for that are readily available, you're
mistaken.
No I am not the reason was to avoid strategic dependence on the USA for everyday navigation.
Which hasn't ever bothered us before. Is the US planning to turn GPS
off then?

The strategic importance is not in everyday satnavs but in military
applications.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The argument is about the encrypted bit. The article implies that the UK is pulling out because it won't be involved in the development of the encrypted bits. If they were already there then it would have been, and if they are still to be developed then the UK will not paid towards it.
The UK will not be involved in *further* development of the military
bit, and that's the bit that's the reason we've been investing at all.
Says who.
Says the Guardian article amongst others. But it's obvious anyway.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The UK is not interested in simple systems to stop you driving down dead
ends. Nor would it be proposing its own enormously expensive system to
do that independently in the event the EU does exclude us. It wants the
military bit. Sole purpose of investment.
Really? - anyway we have walked out of the development group - our choice - hard cheese - as in poker if you want to stay in the game you have to keep betting.
Well, it will be hard cheese too if we just say to the EU, sorry you
can't have your €40bn.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-17 11:43:42 UTC
Permalink
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Did you read the bit where I said "I can receive it now"? My mobile can see it. It's not a full constellation yet, so a fix 24/7 is not guaranteed. So it is [and will be] available for civilian use.
If you think we pumped billions into the project just for civilian use,
especially when alternatives for that are readily available, you're
mistaken.
No I am not the reason was to avoid strategic dependence on the USA for everyday navigation.
Which hasn't ever bothered us before.
It has, which is why we were in Galileo, obviously it's an EU project and we are leaving the EU.
Post by Norman Wells
Is the US planning to turn GPS off then?
They retain the option and have done or nobbled the accuracy over certain conflict areas.
Post by Norman Wells
The strategic importance is not in everyday satnavs but in military
applications.
Civil aviation, merchant shipping and much else now heavily depend on it. Yes you can fly a 747 using a sextant or even a compass - KAL 007.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The argument is about the encrypted bit. The article implies that the UK is pulling out because it won't be involved in the development of the encrypted bits. If they were already there then it would have been, and if they are still to be developed then the UK will not paid towards it.
The UK will not be involved in *further* development of the military
bit, and that's the bit that's the reason we've been investing at all.
Says who.
Says the Guardian article amongst others. But it's obvious anyway.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
The UK is not interested in simple systems to stop you driving down dead
ends. Nor would it be proposing its own enormously expensive system to
do that independently in the event the EU does exclude us. It wants the
military bit. Sole purpose of investment.
Really? - anyway we have walked out of the development group - our choice - hard cheese - as in poker if you want to stay in the game you have to keep betting.
Well, it will be hard cheese too if we just say to the EU, sorry you
can't have your €40bn.
It IS their £39bn. It is also their project. While we were in teh EU it was also our project we CHOSE to leave. Why on earth do Brexiteers think you can leave and still participate like a member?
Pamela
2018-12-16 13:07:17 UTC
Permalink
... snip
If you leave a club, you stop making contributions to it. That's
fundamental.
I can see you have never joined a health club. This is the season for
it when people overeat at Christmas and New year then join their local
health club in January where they have to pay a monthly fee for 12
months.

A large percentage drop out after a few months and never use the club
again but still have to pay the fee.

Car insurance is another example where if you terminate the 12 month
contract early you effectively have to contunie paying although this is
masked inder the pretence of early termination fee or some such device.
Effectively you lose the insurance but have to pay almost as much as you
had agreed to. That almost sounds like the Brexit transition period
until 2020.
And if the club has to cut its coat differently because of that,
that's how it is. We have no continuing liability for anything from
which we will see no benefit in future.
If a professional such as a doctor, accountant or surveyor retires they
still have liabilities arising out of the work they started which run for
years. Such liability exists even if there is no benefit.
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 15:08:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
... snip
If you leave a club, you stop making contributions to it. That's
fundamental.
I can see you have never joined a health club. This is the season for
it when people overeat at Christmas and New year then join their local
health club in January where they have to pay a monthly fee for 12
months.
A large percentage drop out after a few months and never use the club
again but still have to pay the fee.
So, at the end of their membership, they leave and pay no more. I did
say 'if you leave a club' not 'if you stop using it'.
Post by Pamela
Car insurance is another example where if you terminate the 12 month
contract early you effectively have to contunie paying although this is
masked inder the pretence of early termination fee or some such device.
Effectively you lose the insurance but have to pay almost as much as you
had agreed to. That almost sounds like the Brexit transition period
until 2020.
Once you leave, you stop paying. Any exit fee is for what would
otherwise be breach of contract.
Post by Pamela
And if the club has to cut its coat differently because of that,
that's how it is. We have no continuing liability for anything from
which we will see no benefit in future.
If a professional such as a doctor, accountant or surveyor retires they
still have liabilities arising out of the work they started which run for
years. Such liability exists even if there is no benefit.
Only if they've done their job negligently.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-16 15:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Once you leave, you stop paying. Any exit fee is for what would
otherwise be breach of contract.
If, having ordered a round of drinks for everyone in the golf club bar,
instead of paying the bill you tell the club secretary you're resigning,
and walk out, you're still liable to pay at least for the drinks that
have been poured and the bottles that have been opened. [Although,
hopefully, it will come to a lot less than £39 billion.]
--
Ian
Pamela
2018-12-16 16:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Norman Wells
Once you leave, you stop paying. Any exit fee is for what would
otherwise be breach of contract.
If, having ordered a round of drinks for everyone in the golf club bar,
instead of paying the bill you tell the club secretary you're resigning,
and walk out, you're still liable to pay at least for the drinks that
have been poured and the bottles that have been opened. [Although,
hopefully, it will come to a lot less than £39 billion.]
Norman offers all sorts of disreputable strategies, such as not paying our
bills, but when it suits him he complains about allegedly disreputable
second referendums.

Is it conflicted thinking or rank hypocrisy? Perhaps both.
tim...
2018-12-15 10:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there
will be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over
and that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said
they might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before
we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating'
was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in
the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to
the UK parliament. Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British
MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the
fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so and
walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal is
better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its interests
to negotiate further.
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side will
lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial deal to be
reached.
A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins' and one
that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to reach a deal in the
first place and to make it work.
and as I have said before

if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be if they
ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?

tim
Pamela
2018-12-15 11:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David
Davis last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just
told him of a death in the family. He refused to say which way
he had voted in the confidence motion. But true to form, he
perked up a bit later on and carried on spinning the same old
propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having
categorically said there will be no further negotiation, he
insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving us
what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his
'negotiating' was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time
in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable
to the UK parliament. Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the
British MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with
the fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so
and walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal
is better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to
negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its
interests to negotiate further.
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side
will lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial deal
to be reached.
A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins'
and one that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to reach
a deal in the first place and to make it work.
and as I have said before
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be if
they ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
NATO article 5 would be appropriate. Nothing at all to do with the EU.
tim...
2018-12-15 14:38:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David
Davis last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just
told him of a death in the family. He refused to say which way
he had voted in the confidence motion. But true to form, he
perked up a bit later on and carried on spinning the same old
propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having
categorically said there will be no further negotiation, he
insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving us
what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his
'negotiating' was so perfunctory.Ã, Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time
in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable
to the UK parliament.Ã, Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the
British MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with
the fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so
and walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal
is better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to
negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its
interests to negotiate further.
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side
will lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial deal
to be reached.
A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins'
and one that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to reach
a deal in the first place and to make it work.
and as I have said before
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be if
they ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
NATO article 5 would be appropriate. Nothing at all to do with the EU.
doesn't stop the Germans not turning up

tim
Pamela
2018-12-15 18:36:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David
Davis last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had
just told him of a death in the family. He refused to say
which way he had voted in the confidence motion. But true to
form, he perked up a bit later on and carried on spinning the
same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels
having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that
Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said they
might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before
we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further
negotiation"
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his
'negotiating' was so perfunctory.Ã, Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time
in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something
acceptable to the UK parliament.Ã, Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the
British MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope
with the fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating
towards over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing
so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it
for both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so
and walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be
an option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no
deal is better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise
gains. Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in
negotiating. The EU stands to lose less, so they're less
interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its
interests to negotiate further.
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side
will lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial
deal to be reached.
A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins'
and one that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to
reach a deal in the first place and to make it work.
and as I have said before
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be
if they ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
NATO article 5 would be appropriate. Nothing at all to do with the EU.
doesn't stop the Germans not turning up
tim
How do you propose to require the Germans to comply if the EU, somehow
in the future, raises a military force and subsequently wants to strike
back against the Lithuanian invasion which is troubling you?
tim...
2018-12-16 08:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be
if they ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
NATO article 5 would be appropriate. Nothing at all to do with the EU.
doesn't stop the Germans not turning up
tim
How do you propose to require the Germans to comply if the EU, somehow
in the future, raises a military force and subsequently wants to strike
back against the Lithuanian invasion which is troubling you?
You've changed the subject

We were talking about turning up at NATO initiatives

tim
Pamela
2018-12-16 13:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by tim...
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be
if they ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
NATO article 5 would be appropriate. Nothing at all to do with the EU.
doesn't stop the Germans not turning up
tim
How do you propose to require the Germans to comply if the EU,
somehow in the future, raises a military force and subsequently wants
to strike back against the Lithuanian invasion which is troubling
you?
You've changed the subject
We were talking about turning up at NATO initiatives
tim
In fact I have kept you on topic. You posted this:

"and as I have said before if the EU really piss us off, what do you
think our answer will be if they ask for help when the Ruskies march
into Lithuania?"

See above if you have forgotten.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 13:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there
will be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over
and that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said
they might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before
we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating'
was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in
the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to
the UK parliament. Simple fact.
And if, as seems likely, the EU really doesn't care what the British
MPs think of the deal, because actually they can cope with the
fallout from a no-deal Brexit, what then, Norman?
If the EU really doesn't care, what has it been negotiating towards
over the last couple of years, and why has it been doing so?
Negotiations only work when there's potentially something in it for
both sides. Otherwise, they're a complete sham.
If the EU doesn't want a deal, let it be honest for once, say so and
walk away. As I've said often enough, that always has to be an
option, whichever side you're on because, self-evidently, no deal is
better than a bad deal.
But the EU does have something to gain. It's in its interests
therefore to try to get it, and to do that it will have to negotiate.
The negotiations are to minimise losses rather than maximise gains.
Synergy will be lost.
We stand to lose the most, so we're most interested in negotiating.
The EU stands to lose less, so they're less interested.
The EU still stands to lose. If it doesn't want to, it's in its interests
to negotiate further.
39 billion Euros is a not insubstantial sum. And that's just for starters.
It's ridiculous to take that hit on the basis that the other side will
lose even more, when there is clearly a mutually beneficial deal to be
reached.
A negotiation isn't successful if it creates one party that 'wins' and one
that 'loses'. Both sides need to be happy in order to reach a deal in the
first place and to make it work.
and as I have said before
if the EU really piss us off, what do you think our answer will be if they
ask for help when the Ruskies march into Lithuania?
tim
That is a Nato obligation.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 12:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating' was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to the
UK parliament. Simple fact.
Sure - but first it had to negotiate with the UK government and did reach a deal - ratification in the EU parliament is their problem, ratification in Westminster is the UK's.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 13:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
MM
IMO DD always wanted a hard Brexit, which is why his 'negotiating' was so perfunctory. Ditto Boris, Raab and Fox.
Perhaps he got away with gazumping or gazundering at some time in the past and thinks the UK can do it to the EU.
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to the
UK parliament. Simple fact.
Sure - but first it had to negotiate with the UK government and did reach a deal - ratification in the EU parliament is their problem, ratification in Westminster is the UK's.
No, it's both sides' problem. As is obvious, the UK government doesn't
have it in its power to force its deal through parliament, for which we
may actually be grateful given the abject shambles May has 'negotiated'.
But the fact remains that, if the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate
something other than it has already. It can't simply shut up shop.

It's all unsatisfactory of course, but it's a consequence of those who
were negotiating not having the final say, nor having any proper
instruction from those with the final say. That structure should never
have been agreed to because it in truth means that the negotiators were
not really negotiating in good faith. They could say anything, 'agree'
anything, knowing that it could be overturned later. And that's not
agreeing anything.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 13:57:59 UTC
Permalink
SNIP
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
If the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate something acceptable to the
UK parliament. Simple fact.
Sure - but first it had to negotiate with the UK government and did reach a deal - ratification in the EU parliament is their problem, ratification in Westminster is the UK's.
No, it's both sides' problem.
Literally true I suppose. However UK ratification is for the UK government to sort out - how is the EU side supposed to know that the UK side has agreed something it can't ratify?
Post by Norman Wells
As is obvious, the UK government doesn't
have it in its power to force its deal through parliament, for which we
may actually be grateful given the abject shambles May has 'negotiated'.
But the fact remains that, if the EU wants a deal, it has to negotiate
something other than it has already. It can't simply shut up shop.
It's all unsatisfactory of course, but it's a consequence of those who
were negotiating not having the final say, nor having any proper
instruction from those with the final say. That structure should never
have been agreed to because it in truth means that the negotiators were
not really negotiating in good faith. They could say anything, 'agree'
anything, knowing that it could be overturned later. And that's not
agreeing anything.
Er yes or is that no?
Mike Scott
2018-12-17 10:55:27 UTC
Permalink
On 15/12/2018 13:57, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
....
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Sure - but first it had to negotiate with the UK government and did reach a deal - ratification in the EU parliament is their problem, ratification in Westminster is the UK's.
No, it's both sides' problem.
Literally true I suppose. However UK ratification is for the UK government to sort out - how is the EU side supposed to know that the UK side has agreed something it can't ratify?
because both sides know full well that the other side's negotiating team
/cannot/ commit to the deal. That's what the "ratification" is all
about. Although you'd hope that if both sides have negotiated in good
faith and done their best, that ratification would be a formality, or at
worst require only minor changes to be asked for. In this case, at least
one side hasn't, and it isn't.

I can't help but think of Spain - after agreeing the
deal-that-cannot-be-changed, an EU member suddenly wants changes put in
before they'll agree to the deal that's been agreed. I'd suggest that
that change was a sight less reasonable than trying to avoid a possible
unending commitment.
--
Mike Scott
Harlow, England
Norman Wells
2018-12-14 13:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say. And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.

If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.

And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other option.

It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
The Todal
2018-12-14 15:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation.  It's the essence of
negotiation in fact.  Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.  And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better.  It has no other option.
It's a negotiation.  It's how it works.
The way our Brexit negotiation works is, Theresa May pretends to our own
electorate that we actually have good cards in our hand, but she and the
EU know that she is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
She's like Saddam Hussein pretending to have a huge arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction and claiming that she is ready for the mother of all
wars.


“May wanted ‘legal and political assurances’,” said Germany’s Die Zeit.
“She got a five-point declaration on a single sheet of A4 whose
contents, if you look closely, are self-evident and nothing new to
anyone who knows anything about the withdrawal agreement.”

The paper’s commentator Matthias Krupa said it was hard to know whether
to admire May’s perseverance or pity her suffering. “Wherever she goes
on the continent, the message is the same,” he said. “We’re not giving
you anything. Or rather, we’ve already given you enough.”

She was certainly brave, Krupa said. “But bravery alone does not help.
For May and her country, Brexit has become a never-ending nightmare. For
the EU on the other hand, at the end of this wild week, it is a great
success. British politics is shattered into a myriad parts; the EU is
more united than ever.”

In France, Le Monde said, “The exasperation is, at any rate, now
palpable. After 18 months of talks, Brexit fatigue has set in. Brussels
is fed up with British criticism of the backstop, particularly since it
was not imposed by EU negotiators but is the result of London’s choices.”
Norman Wells
2018-12-14 15:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation.  It's the essence of
negotiation in fact.  Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.  And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement,
nothing more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is
that we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have
to negotiate further to get anything better.  It has no other option.
It's a negotiation.  It's how it works.
The way our Brexit negotiation works is, Theresa May pretends to our own
electorate that we actually have good cards in our hand, but she and the
EU know that she is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
I don't really think the fifth largest economy in the world ever argues
economic matters from a position of extreme weakness. Or at least it
shouldn't. May's concessions may give the opposite impression, but
that's down to the way she has misplayed our hand, and it's why we're in
the position we now are.

No-one should be allowed anywhere near a negotiation unless they've
completed Negotiation 101, or at least had instruction on the basics,
which May sadly seems not to have had.

We do actually have very good cards in our hand.
Post by The Todal
She's like Saddam Hussein pretending to have a huge arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction and claiming that she is ready for the mother of all
wars.
That, if true (which I don't think it is), would be naive rhetoric and
bluster from one who has never negotiated anything. Negotiations are
not wars. They are processes by which mutually beneficial agreements
are reached, and they are best reached perfectly amicably.
Post by The Todal
“May wanted ‘legal and political assurances’,” said Germany’s Die Zeit.
“She got a five-point declaration on a single sheet of A4 whose
contents, if you look closely, are self-evident and nothing new to
anyone who knows anything about the withdrawal agreement.”
Well, yippee, but they won't get through the UK parliament, so they
don't help the EU either.
Post by The Todal
The paper’s commentator Matthias Krupa said it was hard to know whether
to admire May’s perseverance or pity her suffering. “Wherever she goes
on the continent, the message is the same,” he said. “We’re not giving
you anything. Or rather, we’ve already given you enough.”
Obviously not, though. Unless a deal can be got through the UK
parliament, there is no deal at all, and the EU will be damaged by that.
And there won't be a deal that gets through parliament unless the EU
shows greater flexibility.
Post by The Todal
She was certainly brave, Krupa said. “But bravery alone does not help.
For May and her country, Brexit has become a never-ending nightmare. For
the EU on the other hand, at the end of this wild week, it is a great
success. British politics is shattered into a myriad parts; the EU is
more united than ever.”
Unity doesn't butter any parsnips though.

This is the language of war again. And it's counterproductive if what
you're hoping to achieve is a mutually beneficial agreement.
Post by The Todal
In France, Le Monde said, “The exasperation is, at any rate, now
palpable. After 18 months of talks, Brexit fatigue has set in. Brussels
is fed up with British criticism of the backstop, particularly since it
was not imposed by EU negotiators but is the result of London’s choices.”
Anyone sensible knows that the only practical solution as regards
Ireland is a hard border such as exists everywhere else in the world
between different economic areas. It's a system that works and is
effective. It's probably also what the EU would have to establish to
protect its boundaries in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Those who think some other solution may be possible are delusional. And
they will go mad perpetually trying to square this unsquareable circle.
They need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Ophelia
2018-12-14 16:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say. And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other option.
It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
The way our Brexit negotiation works is, Theresa May pretends to our own
electorate that we actually have good cards in our hand, but she and the
EU know that she is negotiating from a position of extreme weakness.
She's like Saddam Hussein pretending to have a huge arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction and claiming that she is ready for the mother of all
wars.


“May wanted ‘legal and political assurances’,” said Germany’s Die Zeit.
“She got a five-point declaration on a single sheet of A4 whose
contents, if you look closely, are self-evident and nothing new to
anyone who knows anything about the withdrawal agreement.”

The paper’s commentator Matthias Krupa said it was hard to know whether
to admire May’s perseverance or pity her suffering. “Wherever she goes
on the continent, the message is the same,” he said. “We’re not giving
you anything. Or rather, we’ve already given you enough.”

She was certainly brave, Krupa said. “But bravery alone does not help.
For May and her country, Brexit has become a never-ending nightmare. For
the EU on the other hand, at the end of this wild week, it is a great
success. British politics is shattered into a myriad parts; the EU is
more united than ever.”

In France, Le Monde said, “The exasperation is, at any rate, now
palpable. After 18 months of talks, Brexit fatigue has set in. Brussels
is fed up with British criticism of the backstop, particularly since it
was not imposed by EU negotiators but is the result of London’s choices.”

==

May isn't brave! She is a damned quisling!
tim...
2018-12-14 18:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say. And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other option.
oh how I wish our side had the balls to do this

but they haven't

tim
James Hammerton
2018-12-15 00:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation.  It's the essence of
negotiation in fact.  Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.  And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
With you so far.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better.  It has no other option.
I agree that the default position is that we leave with no withdrawal
agreement in place.

However MPs may, having voted down the deal, vote for a softer, more EU
friendly Brexit and/or a referendum to 'break the deadlock' and which
includes remain as an option. I note a lot of voices urging Labour to
come out in favour of such a referendum and to push ahead with a vote of
no confidence.

Maybe the EU are waiting to see whether the proposals for another
referendum, or at least a softer form of Brexit, will gather steam in
the wake of a defeat for the deal, and thus are holding firm on the deal
for now whilst they consider that possibility is still a live one.

That said as the clock ticks ever onwards the likelihood of either
option getting anywhere recedes and we move to a situation where it
really is deal or no deal because time has run out for anything else.
It's a negotiation.  It's how it works.
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
abelard
2018-12-15 01:04:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:29:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Norman Wells
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
do you really believe they will dare act against a majority
and against what they 'promised'?
--
www.abelard.org
James Hammerton
2018-12-15 19:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:29:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Norman Wells
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
do you really believe they will dare act against a majority
and against what they 'promised'?
Against what they promised? Politicians do that all the time.

Against the majority, no, but they may convince themselves that there is
no majority for Brexit any more based on the recent opinion polls, or at
least are willing to gamble on a 2nd referendum (that in their minds
would confirm the first one if a majority still holds) so they can duck
direct responsibility for a decision to remain.

NB: I'm not convinced by those opinion polls, but I am not ruling out
MPs being influenced/convinced by them.

We can put this in terms of a currency that truly matters to MPs - will
they get reelected?

If they judge that voting for/doing insufficient to stop a 'no deal'
scenario would have them out on their ears at the next election due to
predicted problems it would cause, and/or that their constituents are
opposed to a 'no deal' Brexit anyway, they may feel it is safer to
either obtain a 2nd referendum or cancel Brexit.

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
abelard
2018-12-16 00:10:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 19:51:59 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:29:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Norman Wells
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
do you really believe they will dare act against a majority
and against what they 'promised'?
Against what they promised? Politicians do that all the time.
but usually they can hide that under a stone

hiding such a treason will be hard to bury...increasingly i see
rumbles of 'revolt'...look at france with far less provocation
Post by James Hammerton
Against the majority, no, but they may convince themselves that there is
no majority for Brexit any more based on the recent opinion polls, or at
least are willing to gamble on a 2nd referendum (that in their minds
would confirm the first one if a majority still holds) so they can duck
direct responsibility for a decision to remain.
do you really imagine the intellectual level of the average mp
is that delusional(i don't)
Post by James Hammerton
NB: I'm not convinced by those opinion polls, but I am not ruling out
MPs being influenced/convinced by them.
doesn't look very objective to me...but i can see your point
Post by James Hammerton
We can put this in terms of a currency that truly matters to MPs - will
they get reelected?
if they are that lacking in objectivity...imv another(fake) referendum
would become incendiary....it wouldn't be an opinion poll...it
would be a full blown campaign...
and that is the context of a 'third force'...those revolting against
the whole notion
Post by James Hammerton
If they judge that voting for/doing insufficient to stop a 'no deal'
scenario would have them out on their ears at the next election due to
predicted problems it would cause, and/or that their constituents are
opposed to a 'no deal' Brexit anyway, they may feel it is safer to
either obtain a 2nd referendum or cancel Brexit.
it's a messy world ok
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2018-12-16 09:31:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 01:10:30 +0100
Post by abelard
hiding such a treason will be hard to bury...increasingly i see
rumbles of 'revolt'...look at france with far less provocation
Don't forget that the French (and the Dutch) voted against the EU
Constitution, only to have it imposed on them anyway. We were not
even asked about it, and it was not part of the governing party's
manifesto at the previous General Election.
--
Joe
abelard
2018-12-16 09:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 01:10:30 +0100
Post by abelard
hiding such a treason will be hard to bury...increasingly i see
rumbles of 'revolt'...look at france with far less provocation
Don't forget that the French (and the Dutch) voted against the EU
Constitution, only to have it imposed on them anyway. We were not
even asked about it, and it was not part of the governing party's
manifesto at the previous General Election.
i'm not that forgetful...yet!

they have armoured vehicles on the streets...every roundabout
way out in the country has a peaceful encampment of gilets
now the central gov't is raving about them...

most of the police force are in paris...people are dying...gas and
water canon re in use...

the eussr is not bringing peace
--
www.abelard.org
tim...
2018-12-16 08:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:29:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Norman Wells
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
do you really believe they will dare act against a majority
and against what they 'promised'?
Against what they promised? Politicians do that all the time.
Against the majority, no, but they may convince themselves that there is
no majority for Brexit any more based on the recent opinion polls, or at
least are willing to gamble on a 2nd referendum (that in their minds would
confirm the first one if a majority still holds) so they can duck direct
responsibility for a decision to remain.
NB: I'm not convinced by those opinion polls, but I am not ruling out MPs
being influenced/convinced by them.
We can put this in terms of a currency that truly matters to MPs - will
they get reelected?
If they judge that voting for/doing insufficient to stop a 'no deal'
scenario would have them out on their ears at the next election due to
predicted problems it would cause, and/or that their constituents are
opposed to a 'no deal' Brexit anyway, they may feel it is safer to either
obtain a 2nd referendum or cancel Brexit.
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they eventually
support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO

tim
abelard
2018-12-16 11:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by James Hammerton
Post by abelard
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:29:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Norman Wells
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
do you really believe they will dare act against a majority
and against what they 'promised'?
Against what they promised? Politicians do that all the time.
Against the majority, no, but they may convince themselves that there is
no majority for Brexit any more based on the recent opinion polls, or at
least are willing to gamble on a 2nd referendum (that in their minds would
confirm the first one if a majority still holds) so they can duck direct
responsibility for a decision to remain.
NB: I'm not convinced by those opinion polls, but I am not ruling out MPs
being influenced/convinced by them.
We can put this in terms of a currency that truly matters to MPs - will
they get reelected?
If they judge that voting for/doing insufficient to stop a 'no deal'
scenario would have them out on their ears at the next election due to
predicted problems it would cause, and/or that their constituents are
opposed to a 'no deal' Brexit anyway, they may feel it is safer to either
obtain a 2nd referendum or cancel Brexit.
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they eventually
support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...

'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2018-12-16 11:52:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:04:00 +0100
Post by abelard
Post by tim...
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they
eventually support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...
'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
The buck stops with the PM.

She has already told us she's not staying on for the next GE.

I wonder what she has been promised?
--
Joe
tim...
2018-12-16 12:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:04:00 +0100
Post by abelard
Post by tim...
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they
eventually support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...
'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
The buck stops with the PM.
She can't make any decision except "fall though to No Deal", on her own

For every other possible option to happen, Parliament has to agree to it.

And in agreeing to it, individual MPs will be seen to be responsible by
their constituency electorate
abelard
2018-12-16 12:27:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim...
Post by Joe
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:04:00 +0100
Post by abelard
Post by tim...
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they
eventually support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...
'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
The buck stops with the PM.
She can't make any decision except "fall though to No Deal", on her own
For every other possible option to happen, Parliament has to agree to it.
And in agreeing to it, individual MPs will be seen to be responsible by
their constituency electorate
exactly so
--
www.abelard.org
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-16 12:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:04:00 +0100
Post by abelard
Post by tim...
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they
eventually support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...
'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
The buck stops with the PM.
She has already told us she's not staying on for the next GE.
I wonder what she has been promised?
--
Joe
It is traditional for retiring PM's to be made Earls so for her it could have been Countess of Berkshire, except that this title is currently held by Linda Jacqueline Howard as the wife of the 14th Earl.

Perhaps Countess of Dover then?
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 12:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Joe
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 12:04:00 +0100
Post by abelard
Post by tim...
They are far more likely to be dumped by voter backlash if they
eventually support Remain (or the Norway option) IMHO
the overwhelming purpose of the present rhetorical dance is...
'how can we stop brexit without taking responsibility for stopping
brexit..'
The buck stops with the PM.
She has already told us she's not staying on for the next GE.
I wonder what she has been promised?
--
Joe
It is traditional for retiring PM's to be made Earls so for her it could have been Countess of Berkshire, except that this title is currently held by Linda Jacqueline Howard as the wife of the 14th Earl.
Perhaps Countess of Dover then?
If they want it, they're usually actually given a life peerage with the
title baron or baroness. A countess is the wife of an earl.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 08:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation.  It's the essence of
negotiation in fact.  Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.  And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement,
nothing more.
With you so far.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
True but that does not mean us leaving the EU without a deal is the
guaranteed outcome if the deal is voted down in Parliament.
Quite so.
Post by James Hammerton
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is
that we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have
to negotiate further to get anything better.  It has no other option.
I agree that the default position is that we leave with no withdrawal
agreement in place.
However MPs may, having voted down the deal, vote for a softer, more EU
friendly Brexit and/or a referendum to 'break the deadlock' and which
includes remain as an option. I note a lot of voices urging Labour to
come out in favour of such a referendum
Yes. Contrary to their own manifesto on which they were elected. Very
principled I'm sure.
Post by James Hammerton
and to push ahead with a vote of no confidence.
Which they cannot win. They do not have the numbers. That's why they
haven't gone for one, and won't.
Post by James Hammerton
Maybe the EU are waiting to see whether the proposals for another
referendum, or at least a softer form of Brexit, will gather steam in
the wake of a defeat for the deal, and thus are holding firm on the deal
for now whilst they consider that possibility is still a live one.
It seems that's their negotiating strategy, yes.
Post by James Hammerton
That said as the clock ticks ever onwards the likelihood of either
option getting anywhere recedes and we move to a situation where it
really is deal or no deal because time has run out for anything else.
Run down the clock and hope that the UK panics. It's a good line, but a
risky one.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 13:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say. And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other option.
It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
It is negotiation, but in bad faith.

You go to a car showroom and shake hands on buying a nice used car for £10k and promise to come back the following day with the money. Instead you come back and say "I have had a chat with my spouse and I will only pay £9k".

In this case the government has negotiated on behalf of the UK for over two years. A deal has been reached and all that is required is ratification by the UK and EU parliaments. The EU took 2 minutes for the draft and 38 minutes for all 27 other countries to agree the full deal in principle. In the UK - well you have been following the media?
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 14:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off, it
hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say. And
that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement, nothing
more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is that
we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have to
negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other option.
It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
It is negotiation, but in bad faith.
You go to a car showroom and shake hands on buying a nice used car for £10k and promise to come back the following day with the money. Instead you come back and say "I have had a chat with my spouse and I will only pay £9k".
If it was agreed that your spouse would have the final say, there's
nothing wrong with that. But no sensible negotiator would agree to it.
Any negotiation that is entered into should be on the basis that the
negotiator has the full authority to agree the deal, and that his word
is his bond and a commitment. Unfortunately, neither the EU nor the UK
would have it. Parliaments on both sides were determined to have the
final say, and now have to face the consequences.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In this case the government has negotiated on behalf of the UK for over two years. A deal has been reached and all that is required is ratification by the UK and EU parliaments. The EU took 2 minutes for the draft and 38 minutes for all 27 other countries to agree the full deal in principle. In the UK - well you have been following the media?
Of course. But them's the rules they all agreed beforehand, so they
can't complain.

The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to me
it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest. The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss for
the UK, so it won't be agreed.

Moral of the tale: do Negotiation 101 before you start, set the
negotiations up properly, and give your negotiators the authority they
need to conclude a binding deal.
The Todal
2018-12-15 19:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to me
it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest.  The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss for
the UK, so it won't be agreed.
The UK representatives drafted most of the treaty, so the EU not
surprisingly thought that the UK parliament would approve it. But they
reckoned without the mule-like stupidity of the ardent Leave supporters.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 19:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest.  The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
The UK representatives drafted most of the treaty, so the EU not
surprisingly thought that the UK parliament would approve it. But they
reckoned without the mule-like stupidity of the ardent Leave supporters.
They agreed the terms of reference in the first place, and those said
the UK parliament would have to agree any deal. Sorry, but them's the
rules, and we're only playing by them. Too bad if they made unwarranted
assumptions.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 19:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest.  The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
The UK representatives drafted most of the treaty, so the EU not
surprisingly thought that the UK parliament would approve it. But they
reckoned without the mule-like stupidity of the ardent Leave supporters.
They agreed the terms of reference in the first place, and those said
the UK parliament would have to agree any deal. Sorry, but them's the
rules, and we're only playing by them. Too bad if they made unwarranted
assumptions.
Like the other side was negotiating in good faith - oh how silly of them.

Of course as pointed out in another thread IDS advocates defaulting on existing financial obligations and abrogating the Good Friday Agreement (a treaty with Ireland), so perhaps they should have realised that the UK would quickly go back on its word.

Anyway the EU parliament will probably ratify next week leaving the ball back in the UK court. It is pretty clear they don't want to play brinkmanship games over this one.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 22:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest.  The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
The UK representatives drafted most of the treaty, so the EU not
surprisingly thought that the UK parliament would approve it. But they
reckoned without the mule-like stupidity of the ardent Leave supporters.
They agreed the terms of reference in the first place, and those said
the UK parliament would have to agree any deal. Sorry, but them's the
rules, and we're only playing by them. Too bad if they made unwarranted
assumptions.
Like the other side was negotiating in good faith - oh how silly of them.
If they wanted the negotiators to have full authority, and whatever they
decided to be binding, they should never have agreed, as they did, to
the deal having to be agreed finally by the UK parliament and the EU
parliament.

If you act within the rules as previously agreed, you are by definition
acting in good faith, and no-one can claim any higher ground.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Of course as pointed out in another thread IDS advocates defaulting on existing financial obligations and abrogating the Good Friday Agreement (a treaty with Ireland), so perhaps they should have realised that the UK would quickly go back on its word.
Anyway the EU parliament will probably ratify next week leaving the ball back in the UK court. It is pretty clear they don't want to play brinkmanship games over this one.
But that's exactly what they're doing. They're saying they won't
negotiate further, hoping we'll just accept that and crumble, but the
fact is they need to negotiate further if they want a deal, which
everyone says they do, and that will have to be acceptable to the UK
parliament. The default position is that we leave the EU on 29 March,
deal or no deal.
Ian Jackson
2018-12-15 20:21:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Todal
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest.  The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
The UK representatives drafted most of the treaty, so the EU not
surprisingly thought that the UK parliament would approve it. But they
reckoned without the mule-like stupidity of the ardent Leave supporters.
They agreed the terms of reference in the first place, and those said
the UK parliament would have to agree any deal. Sorry, but them's the
rules, and we're only playing by them. Too bad if they made
unwarranted assumptions.
Britain (well, mainly England and Wales) is severely handicapped by
being the originators of the game of cricket.

Traditionally, cricket has been a byword for gentlemanly behaviour and
fair play (at least in the amateur form). When I listen to the many
Brexiteer in-phoners, it's often fairly clear that their objections to
having a second referendum is not so much about the EU, but instead it's
being strongly driven by an inherent instinct that 'fair play' must
prevail at all costs - and therefore the result of the first referendum
- despite all its defects - simply must be implemented to the letter,
regardless of the consequences.

Occasionally such 'fair play' attitudes are not only limited to
Brexiteers, but are also those of some of the diehard Remainers. It's
not unusual to hear "I know the result going to be terribly wrong for
the UK, but it must stand". While I hesitate to condone tearing up the
referendum rule book, I do feel that there are times when it's wise to
remove the bails, pull up the stumps, and deal with Brexit as though it
was real life.
--
Ian
Tim Woodall
2018-12-15 20:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Britain (well, mainly England and Wales) is severely handicapped by
being the originators of the game of cricket.
Traditionally, cricket has been a byword for gentlemanly behaviour and
fair play (at least in the amateur form). When I listen to the many
Brexiteer in-phoners, it's often fairly clear that their objections to
having a second referendum is not so much about the EU, but instead it's
being strongly driven by an inherent instinct that 'fair play' must
prevail at all costs - and therefore the result of the first referendum
- despite all its defects - simply must be implemented to the letter,
regardless of the consequences.
Except that an agreement with the EU that we are leaving to become a
'closely associated power' that carries all the same responsibilities
except that we don't get invited to tea on the thursday after the
christmas party would implement 'brexit means brexit' to the letter of
the referendum.
Post by Ian Jackson
Occasionally such 'fair play' attitudes are not only limited to
Brexiteers, but are also those of some of the diehard Remainers. It's
not unusual to hear "I know the result going to be terribly wrong for
the UK, but it must stand". While I hesitate to condone tearing up the
referendum rule book, I do feel that there are times when it's wise to
remove the bails, pull up the stumps, and deal with Brexit as though it
was real life.
Somehow, TM seems to have allowed the brexiteers to define what the
referendum means - to the point where they can simultaneously claim that
her deal 'denies the will of the people' but going back for a second
peoples vote now there's a real deal on the table also 'denies the will
of the people'
Pamela
2018-12-15 19:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there will
be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and
that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said they
might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before we
leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off,
it hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.
And that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement,
nothing more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is
that we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have
to negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other
option.
It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
It is negotiation, but in bad faith.
You go to a car showroom and shake hands on buying a nice used car
for £10k and promise to come back the following day with the money.
Instead you come back and say "I have had a chat with my spouse and I
will only pay £9k".
If it was agreed that your spouse would have the final say, there's
nothing wrong with that. But no sensible negotiator would agree to
it. Any negotiation that is entered into should be on the basis that
the negotiator has the full authority to agree the deal, and that his
word is his bond and a commitment. Unfortunately, neither the EU nor
the UK would have it. Parliaments on both sides were determined to
have the final say, and now have to face the consequences.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In this case the government has negotiated on behalf of the UK for
over two years. A deal has been reached and all that is required is
ratification by the UK and EU parliaments. The EU took 2 minutes for
the draft and 38 minutes for all 27 other countries to agree the full
deal in principle. In the UK - well you have been following the
media?
Of course. But them's the rules they all agreed beforehand, so they
can't complain.
No one is complaining (that's for Brexiteers to do) but it compares two
different approaches.
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest. The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
Groan ..... what a self-serving conclusion. The example actually shows
how quickly, effectively and for the common good, 27 countries working
together can be compared to one wacky country going off and doing its
own thing without knowing how.
Post by Norman Wells
Moral of the tale: do Negotiation 101 before you start, set the
negotiations up properly, and give your negotiators the authority they
need to conclude a binding deal.
That would not have helped solve the delays and prevarications by Davis
and the British side. They couldn't say what the UK actually wanted
until very late in the process. What a shambles.

Don't invoke Art.50 until you know you can be ready for leaving day.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 21:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there will
be no further negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and
that Brussels always takes things to the wire. He even said they
might delay giving us what we want right up to the day before we
leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Of course there can be further negotiation. It's the essence of
negotiation in fact. Until a final deal is reached and signed off,
it hasn't been agreed regardless of what any of the parties may say.
And that's the current position; what we have is a DRAFT agreement,
nothing more.
If Parliament cannot vote in favour of the deal, then we have no deal.
And if the EU doesn't like the default consequence of that which is
that we crash out of the EU with no agreement in place, it will have
to negotiate further to get anything better. It has no other
option.
It's a negotiation. It's how it works.
It is negotiation, but in bad faith.
You go to a car showroom and shake hands on buying a nice used car
for £10k and promise to come back the following day with the money.
Instead you come back and say "I have had a chat with my spouse and I
will only pay £9k".
If it was agreed that your spouse would have the final say, there's
nothing wrong with that. But no sensible negotiator would agree to
it. Any negotiation that is entered into should be on the basis that
the negotiator has the full authority to agree the deal, and that his
word is his bond and a commitment. Unfortunately, neither the EU nor
the UK would have it. Parliaments on both sides were determined to
have the final say, and now have to face the consequences.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
In this case the government has negotiated on behalf of the UK for
over two years. A deal has been reached and all that is required is
ratification by the UK and EU parliaments. The EU took 2 minutes for
the draft and 38 minutes for all 27 other countries to agree the full
deal in principle. In the UK - well you have been following the
media?
Of course. But them's the rules they all agreed beforehand, so they
can't complain.
No one is complaining (that's for Brexiteers to do) but it compares two
different approaches.
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to
me it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest. The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss
for the UK, so it won't be agreed.
Groan ..... what a self-serving conclusion. The example actually shows
how quickly, effectively and for the common good, 27 countries working
together can be compared to one wacky country going off and doing its
own thing without knowing how.
Well, good for them. But we've invoked a backstop completely within the
agreed rules.
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Moral of the tale: do Negotiation 101 before you start, set the
negotiations up properly, and give your negotiators the authority they
need to conclude a binding deal.
That would not have helped solve the delays and prevarications by Davis
and the British side. They couldn't say what the UK actually wanted
until very late in the process. What a shambles.
Who is 'the UK' though? That was the problem from the start. Is it Mrs
May? Is it 'the government'? Or is it Parliament?

Negotiators need a clear lead, and be given the authority to conclude
deals. But no-one would or could agree who had responsibility.
pensive hamster
2018-12-15 19:56:14 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, 15 December 2018 14:06:09 UTC, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to me
it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest. The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss for
the UK, so it won't be agreed.
Moral of the tale: do Negotiation 101 before you start, set the
negotiations up properly, and give your negotiators the authority they
need to conclude a binding deal.
So how would you give the UK negotiators the authority they need
to conclude a binding deal, without undermining the sovereignty of
parliament?

You'd either have to get parliament to vote for handing over authority
about the deal to the UK negotiators, or you need to get parliament
to approve the negotiated deal, which they don't seem willing to do
at present.
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 22:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
The EU parliament agreeing to the draft deal so quickly indicates to me
it's a huge win for them that they didn't want to disturb in the
slightest. The UK parliament taking so long shows it's a huge loss for
the UK, so it won't be agreed.
Moral of the tale: do Negotiation 101 before you start, set the
negotiations up properly, and give your negotiators the authority they
need to conclude a binding deal.
So how would you give the UK negotiators the authority they need
to conclude a binding deal, without undermining the sovereignty of
parliament?
You'd either have to get parliament to vote for handing over authority
about the deal to the UK negotiators,
Exactly. You can't have negotiators going in to negotiate unless they
are fully authorised to do so. Otherwise if what they negotiate can be
negated by someone else later they are not negotiating in good faith.

Obviously, parliament is too unwieldy to negotiate itself as a body, so
it has to delegate others to do it. Normally, that would be the
government, and in effect therefore the Prime Minister, because it is
the PM who in principle can command a majority in parliament and
whatever she decides goes. But that situation doesn't apply at the
moment because the government doesn't have an overall majority and the
PM cannot get whatever she wants.

It's an irresolvable problem until we elect a government with a
substantial overall majority.
Post by pensive hamster
or you need to get parliament
to approve the negotiated deal, which they don't seem willing to do
at present.
But those are the previously agreed ground rules, and I think most are
quite pleased in fact that May's awful proposed deal can't get through.
James Hammerton
2018-12-15 00:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.

he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
Post by MM
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?

He even said they might delay giving
Post by MM
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?

Why assume that their current position is the final position when there
are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
tim...
2018-12-15 10:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
Post by MM
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
there are some here who do

when I said it's what always happen they asked me for a cite

tim
MM
2018-12-15 11:21:54 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:03:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
Post by MM
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Yes. The EU has always been consistent, but Britain has not. And then
Britain has the gall to blame the EU for our own intransigence! Whose
red lines were they? They were Theresa May's, no?
Post by James Hammerton
He even said they might delay giving
Post by MM
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
They're not delaying anything. They said yesterday, already, that
there would be no further negotiations, and Theresa May came back to
the UK with absolutely nothing.
Post by James Hammerton
Why assume that their current position is the final position when there
are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
They are already planning for no deal! Are we?

Next Wednesday they will release details of what their no deal
planning entails. When will we be doing that?
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Because they have shown all along that they are consistent and stick
to their guns, whereas we tried to go behind their backs and use some
mad British form of divide and conquer by talking to individiual
leaders in secret. Well, trying to, since Barnier was having none of
that!

We're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing, you know!

MM
Norman Wells
2018-12-15 12:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:03:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
They're not delaying anything. They said yesterday, already, that
there would be no further negotiations, and Theresa May came back to
the UK with absolutely nothing.
If the EU wants a deal, and everyone says it does because it will be in
a worse position otherwise, then it has to be something that will pass
the UK parliament, and that clearly can't be achieved unless there are
further negotiations.

Negotiations are what take place right up until the time a final deal is
signed off, and that time has not yet been reached.
Post by MM
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Because they have shown all along that they are consistent and stick
to their guns, whereas we tried to go behind their backs and use some
mad British form of divide and conquer by talking to individiual
leaders in secret. Well, trying to, since Barnier was having none of
that!
The EU still needs to negotiate further if it wants a deal. If it
doesn't, that's a shame because there's a deal to be made, but we can't
stop them petulantly flouncing away.
Post by MM
We're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing, you know!
Only by anglophobes with a penchant for archaic terminology, and sore
losers who were miffed in the past by being outmanoeuvered.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-12-15 13:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:03:27 +0000, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
Post by MM
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Yes. The EU has always been consistent, but Britain has not. And then
Britain has the gall to blame the EU for our own intransigence! Whose
red lines were they? They were Theresa May's, no?
Post by James Hammerton
He even said they might delay giving
Post by MM
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
They're not delaying anything. They said yesterday, already, that
there would be no further negotiations, and Theresa May came back to
the UK with absolutely nothing.
Post by James Hammerton
Why assume that their current position is the final position when there
are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
They are already planning for no deal! Are we?
Next Wednesday they will release details of what their no deal
planning entails. When will we be doing that?
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Because they have shown all along that they are consistent and stick
to their guns, whereas we tried to go behind their backs and use some
mad British form of divide and conquer by talking to individiual
leaders in secret. Well, trying to, since Barnier was having none of
that!
We're not known as Perfidious Albion for nothing, you know!
MM
Perhaps more to the point Tusk and Junker have had the prompt full backing of all 27 other nations, so they do not have to watch their backs.

May on other hand heads a minority government, has lost the support of her coalition partners, had dozens of ministers resign and has just rather unconvincingly seen off a mutiny in her own party. Polls look bad too!
Pamela
2018-12-15 14:45:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in
the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on
and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker
et al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to the
day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.

Strange that you don't understand this although I suppose some males,
espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and can't fully
see the human aspect of interactions.
abelard
2018-12-15 15:11:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in
the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on
and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker
et al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to the
day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
Strange that you don't understand this although I suppose some males,
espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and can't fully
see the human aspect of interactions.
you were asked a question...

you are making the error of continually translating questions
(and the like) into beliefs...
--
www.abelard.org
Pamela
2018-12-15 18:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On 00:03 15 Dec 2018, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there will
be no further negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to
the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
Strange that you don't understand this although I suppose some males,
espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and can't fully
see the human aspect of interactions.
you were asked a question...
you are making the error of continually translating questions
(and the like) into beliefs...
Read again what I wrote to understand why one should assume Junker et al
are indeed bluffing.

Take it more slowy this time as the subtleties appear to have eluded
you.
James Hammerton
2018-12-15 19:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
On 00:03 15 Dec 2018, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there will
be no further negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to
the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
Strange that you don't understand this although I suppose some males,
espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and can't fully
see the human aspect of interactions.
you were asked a question...
you are making the error of continually translating questions
(and the like) into beliefs...
Read again what I wrote to understand why one should assume Junker et al
are indeed bluffing.
You were writing in that in response to my questioning of someone who
seems to be assuming it wasn't a bluff, saying to me "Strange you don't
understand this" when "this" was the very possibility I was driving at!

Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Pamela
2018-12-15 20:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hammerton
Post by Pamela
Post by abelard
On 00:03 15 Dec 2018, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David
Davis last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just
told him of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he
had voted in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked
up a bit later on and carried on spinning the same old
propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having
categorically said there will be no further negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to
the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when
they state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool
would close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
Strange that you don't understand this although I suppose some
males, espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and
can't fully see the human aspect of interactions.
you were asked a question...
you are making the error of continually translating questions
(and the like) into beliefs...
Read again what I wrote to understand why one should assume Junker et
al are indeed bluffing.
You were writing in that in response to my questioning of someone who
seems to be assuming it wasn't a bluff, saying to me "Strange you
don't understand this" when "this" was the very possibility I was
driving at!
Regards,
James
The threads sometimes get confusing here because I often filter out
Abelard but at other times I see his posts. Oh well. :)
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2018-12-15 17:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in
the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on
and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker
et al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to the
day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM and
Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated by the EU
is an immovable, unalterable truth.
--
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
MM
2018-12-16 12:48:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Pamela
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in
the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on
and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker
et al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to the
day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM and
Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated by the EU
is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 13:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM and
Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated by the EU
is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.
There aren't winners and losers in negotiations. There's either a deal
agreed by both sides or there's no deal.
Pamela
2018-12-16 15:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM
and Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated
by the EU is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.
There aren't winners and losers in negotiations. There's either a
deal agreed by both sides or there's no deal.
I see your mistake. Although an agreement arising out of negotiation is
accepted by both sides, it may have been forced onto one party.

There are many examples of one sided agreements: Stalin and the Allies
had a postwar agreement at Potsdam but, boy, was it one sided.

The UK will be one such unhappy party in the Brexit negotiations. Its
folly is that it can't easily walk away from a poor deal because it's
actually the party requesting the deal in the first place.

Such is the wonder of Brexit.

Leavers didn't think it through and wrongly presumed the EU was the weaker
party despite all the advice saying the opposite. Sigh.
Norman Wells
2018-12-16 17:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM
and Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated
by the EU is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.
There aren't winners and losers in negotiations. There's either a
deal agreed by both sides or there's no deal.
I see your mistake. Although an agreement arising out of negotiation is
accepted by both sides, it may have been forced onto one party.
By whose army?
Post by Pamela
There are many examples of one sided agreements: Stalin and the Allies
had a postwar agreement at Potsdam but, boy, was it one sided.
I thought it was two-sided. There was even an iron curtain between
them, no?
Post by Pamela
The UK will be one such unhappy party in the Brexit negotiations. Its
folly is that it can't easily walk away from a poor deal because it's
actually the party requesting the deal in the first place.
We didn't request anything. We were committed to negotiations with the
EU by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as they were with us.
Post by Pamela
Such is the wonder of Brexit.
Leavers didn't think it through and wrongly presumed the EU was the weaker
party despite all the advice saying the opposite. Sigh.
No they didn't.
Pamela
2018-12-17 12:29:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like
MM and Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position
stated by the EU is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.
There aren't winners and losers in negotiations. There's either a
deal agreed by both sides or there's no deal.
I see your mistake. Although an agreement arising out of negotiation
is accepted by both sides, it may have been forced onto one party.
By whose army?
Post by Pamela
There are many examples of one sided agreements: Stalin and the
Allies had a postwar agreement at Potsdam but, boy, was it one sided.
I thought it was two-sided. There was even an iron curtain between
them, no?
Your history appears lacking. Google can tell you where the real power
lay at Potsdam and it wasn't with the alcoholic nor the newcomer.

As for your use of English:

(1) It's a "one-sided" agreement because that's the phrase used to mean
the agreement favoured one side far more than the other.

(2) It's a "two-sided" agreement because there were two sides
participating.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Pamela
The UK will be one such unhappy party in the Brexit negotiations.
Its folly is that it can't easily walk away from a poor deal because
it's actually the party requesting the deal in the first place.
We didn't request anything. We were committed to negotiations with
the EU by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, as they were with us.
Post by Pamela
Such is the wonder of Brexit.
Leavers didn't think it through and wrongly presumed the EU was the
weaker party despite all the advice saying the opposite. Sigh.
No they didn't.
Pamela
2018-12-16 13:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 17:29:29 +0000, The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
On 00:03 15 Dec 2018, James Hammerton
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him
of a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted
in the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit
later on and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite
Tusk, Junker et al in Brussels having categorically said there
will be no further negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels always takes
things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to
the day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation"
hasn't he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it. Even schoolkids selling sweets start
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
That's exactly the point he is making. It is Remainer fools like MM
and Clayton who *do* assume that every negotiating position stated by
the EU is an immovable, unalterable truth.
Well, who won the negotiations? Patently, it's not us.
MM
You're now dealing with sore losers from the Leave camp who are licking
their wounds and making up all sorts of excuses why their plan (which
was loopy from the outset) didn't work out..... Naughty EU. Sabotage
by Remainers. World markets. Wrong sort of snow.

Leavers' arguments make even less sense now than the little sense they
made before.
James Hammerton
2018-12-15 19:56:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by James Hammerton
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in
the confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on
and carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker
et al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation,
This might be true, or it might be a bluff.
Post by MM
he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire.
Do you dispute that Brussels does this?
Post by MM
He even said they might delay giving us what we want right up to the
day before we leave!
Why wouldn't they delay offering us what we want until the last minute?
Why assume that their current position is the final position when
there are still a few months to go before 'no deal' kicks in?
Post by MM
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Why do you assume the Tusk, Junker et al are not bluffing when they
state this?
Such a bluff occurs in nearly all negotiations and only a fool would
close their eyes to it.
Indeed.

Even schoolkids selling sweets start
Post by Pamela
negotiations by resisting any opening offer and demanding the full
price.
Strange that you don't understand this
Huh? I was pointing out the possiblity of part of the EU's stance being
a bluff!

although I suppose some males,
Post by Pamela
espcially those with Asperger's, are extremely literal and can't fully
see the human aspect of interactions.
Regards,

James
--
James Hammerton
http://jhammerton.wordpress.com
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
Peter Percival
2018-12-15 18:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by MM
Man, did he look unhappy. And worn out. No smirks from David Davis
last night. He looked as miserable as if someone had just told him of
a death in the family. He refused to say which way he had voted in the
confidence motion. But true to form, he perked up a bit later on and
carried on spinning the same old propaganda. Despite Tusk, Junker et
al in Brussels having categorically said there will be no further
negotiation, he insists negotiation is not over and that Brussels
always takes things to the wire. He even said they might delay giving
us what we want right up to the day before we leave!
Is he a complete idiot? What part of "no further negotiation" hasn't
he understood?
Having been a member of Mrs May's cabinet, he will be quite used to
people saying, even quite determinedly, what they later go back on.

Whether Pan Tusk and Herr Juncker are May-like in that respect, I do not
know.
--
"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond
Loading...