fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:We are rather knawing over old bones here around a time that has long since disappeared, but my point was showing how different it would be for the UK in an A50 process, to that of Scotland in leaving the UK and then joining the EU, as per your claim below - that it would be the same process.

zerne wrote:But just as Scotland was informed that independence was a requirement to full EU membership. The triggering of Article 50 (leaving the EU button) means that the UK must leave before considering applications to either of those groups.

I'm not claiming them as the same process, what i'm stating is that EU has stipulated grounds for entry to and leaving the EU. (Article's 49 and 50.)

You say you are not describing them as the same process, but then confirm you were indeed making a claim that the EU has a process.

Indeed, it has at least two i can think of. They're not the same process.

fisherman wrote:When you say,

But just as Scotland...means that the UK

you are drawing a link, and making a claim that one situation is the same as the other - a comparison. The only comparison that is coherent with what you wrote (though it is wrong) is the process, a process as you state, that the

EU has stipulated grounds for entry to and leaving the EU.

, which is why you were talking about Scotland's pathway to the EU being via independence.

The only comparison being drawn was that the terms of entry and exit were provided by the EU.

Scotland was told that independence was a necessary requirement for membership in response to an enquiry from the FIrst Minister that was exploring ways to stay within the EU post referendum (iirc).

The UK received a response to their triggering of Article 50; it was more formal. That delineated the minimum requirements from the EU and concerned states to the UK leaving (the Backstop) the UK adopted that when defining the hard borders (the Withdrwal Agreement). EU ratified their parts, awaiting response from UK at present.

They're definitely not the same process, and have few similarities beyond that broad stroke.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:The transition period following A 50 would minimise the disruption shifting from one relationship to the other by maintaining the UK in the single market, though with no voting rights or whatever conditions are deemed necessary to maintain the smooth running of EU, followed by the necessary negotiations to facilitate entry to EFTA and the EEA.

If you want to split hairs and maintain that the process necessitates "leaving the EU", have it, the key difference being that for the UK the process would be carried out "from within" as a leaving member of the EU and a seamless transition, an option that was not open to Scotland.

Cool story bro, unfortunately in addition to misapplying the terms you appear to have overlooked one very serious problem. The EEA/EFTA are groups. Trade groups. They trade with the EU.

Now, what might the EU have said repeatedly over the last 3 years about entering trade negotiations before the article process 50 is completed?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously. If you take a moment you may be able to figure out why trade negotiations are impossible for a member state before, and during, a process for leaving the EU.

fisherman wrote:There is little doubt that a transition period would have been negotiable, the EU and ROI, in particular, would have wished for a smooth transition. Even the current WA which was a dog's dinner of a negotiation, has a transition period, despite it being to an unknown destination.

Little doubt in your mind perhaps. In reality it was always a false promise and one that proved to be non-deliverable in both theory and practice.

The WA does have definite destination by the way, the end point is the rest of the UK (incl Gibraltar) have 3rd party status in respect of the EU. That's what happens when you trigger a process for leaving the EU. They agree a path for you to leave the EU.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:
What you proposed and insisted as possible was tested against reality and failed. The EU delineated what Article 50 entails;it is a legal process by which a member state becomes an non-member state. That is the purpose, function and intent behind its drafting. Being wrong about that is not an uncontroversial detail.

Now. Could you please explain what you consider my unresolved claim to be?

I don't feel we are making much progress here Zerne, pointless even.

I'm happy to leave it where we agree to disagree.

Not at all. I admit though, very intrigued as to where you would draw those hard (customs) borders. Do you agree with the backstop?

We continue to diverge zerne.

Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to pick through the wreckage of this discussion, to see how we got to where we are.
Thanks anyway

A thoughtful article in The Times by Massie. Feels a little melancholic, I think he is capturing the knife-edge the union is walking.

...that you increasingly suspect the argument for independence is being made more forcefully in London than in Edinburgh these days. To adapt an old saw: Scotland isn’t leaving Britain, Britain is leaving Scotland. Well, perhaps. Independence would be an expensive business but so is Brexit, and there’s a very good reason unionists oppose a second independence referendum: they think, or at any rate they fear, they might lose it.

Here we may pause to note a certain irony: the reason Sturgeon has effectively parked the referendum question for the time being is that she too fears she might lose a plebiscite if it were held next year.

Both sides appreciate that the next referendum is for keeps and the risks of losing it currently outweigh the attractiveness of winning it. Hence the uneasy, phoney feel of Scottish politics just now. Everyone is waiting to see which way events tip the scales.

fisherman wrote:We continue to diverge zerne.

Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to pick through the wreckage of this discussion, to see how we got to where we are.
Thanks anyway

Hey, i appreciate hearing your beliefs. It's just unfortunate that you appear to have decided to shield them from the reality of the situation. Insisting that the EEA or EFTA have any business in the EU's Article 50 process or that EU is obliged to negotiate the UK entry into another trade group is novel, but ignores why those processes are separate and distinct in the first place.

A call to EEA or EFTA prior to triggering Article 50 would have resulted in polite bafflement from those bodies as the UK is not even eligible to apply until it leaves the EU.

Perhaps i lack the faith required to belief otherwise.

fisherman wrote:We continue to diverge zerne.

Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to pick through the wreckage of this discussion, to see how we got to where we are.
Thanks anyway

Hey, i appreciate hearing your beliefs. It's just unfortunate that you appear to have decided to shield them from the reality of the situation. Insisting that the EEA or EFTA have any business in the EU's Article 50 process or that EU is obliged to negotiate the UK entry into another trade group is novel, but ignores why those processes are separate and distinct in the first place.

A call to EEA or EFTA prior to triggering Article 50 would have resulted in polite bafflement from those bodies as the UK is not even eligible to apply until it leaves the EU.

Perhaps i lack the faith required to belief otherwise.

Fenrir wrote:There's already a wall. May need slight refurbishment.

..and we got the Romans to pay for it!

double posts

Both sides of the existing wall are entirely in England though. More worryingly, even a marauding gibberish-spouting Boris could just walk around it. We need a Boris-proof wall!

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:We continue to diverge zerne.

Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to pick through the wreckage of this discussion, to see how we got to where we are.
Thanks anyway

Hey, i appreciate hearing your beliefs. It's just unfortunate that you appear to have decided to shield them from the reality of the situation. Insisting that the EEA or EFTA have any business in the EU's Article 50 process or that EU is obliged to negotiate the UK entry into another trade group is novel, but ignores why those processes are separate and distinct in the first place.

A call to EEA or EFTA prior to triggering Article 50 would have resulted in polite bafflement from those bodies as the UK is not even eligible to apply until it leaves the EU.

Perhaps i lack the faith required to belief otherwise.

It's not the subject matter that I don't want to debate, as to a degree I'm pretty sure of my footing, and I'm happy to have that challenged but I think it is possible to encounter a clash of discussing "styles", that makes for a less than satisfactory debate. Like I said I am happy to agree to disagree on the subject and leave it there.

Poll: "More than half (51%) of those surveyed thought another [indy] referendum should be held either when UK is negotiating to leave the EU or has finished the negotiations"
So that's either now (EU says talks are done) or October (when Boris claims he'll redo the brexit deal)

https://twitter.com/KirstyS_Hughes/stat ... 8487389186

ronmcd wrote:Both sides of the existing wall are entirely in England though. More worryingly, even a marauding gibberish-spouting Boris could just walk around it. We need a Boris-proof wall!

I see Hunt is now matching Boris's rhetoric almost word for word. Talking about pulling out of their obligations to the EU and withholding funds. Tantrum politics. i'm really not sure how that supposed to even work.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:

fisherman wrote:We continue to diverge zerne.

Unfortunately, I don't have the patience to pick through the wreckage of this discussion, to see how we got to where we are.
Thanks anyway

Hey, i appreciate hearing your beliefs. It's just unfortunate that you appear to have decided to shield them from the reality of the situation. Insisting that the EEA or EFTA have any business in the EU's Article 50 process or that EU is obliged to negotiate the UK entry into another trade group is novel, but ignores why those processes are separate and distinct in the first place.

A call to EEA or EFTA prior to triggering Article 50 would have resulted in polite bafflement from those bodies as the UK is not even eligible to apply until it leaves the EU.

Perhaps i lack the faith required to belief otherwise.

It's not the subject matter that I don't want to debate, as to a degree I'm pretty sure of my footing, and I'm happy to have that challenged but I think it is possible to encounter a clash of discussing "styles", that makes for a less than satisfactory debate. Like I said I am happy to agree to disagree on the subject and leave it there.

The scenario you presented is the same stuff that was being promised during the EU referendum by the likes of Boris, Farage and other bad actors in favour of leaving. It's an alluring, ideal narrative that promises the best of worlds and no disruption as we glide gently to our destination.

It relies on presenting the negotiations as some free-for-all hagglefest where everything is on the table. The problem is that they are not. The negotiations are about the member state leaving the EU and losing it current status and benefits. The deadline, currently Oct 31 2019, is when that comes into effect. The transition period is the time given for the exiting member state to ready itself for the new status of 3rd party. Placing hard customs borders etc. It retains membership throughout transition and leaves and loses it on the agreed date.

Where we are currently is short way from the agreed deadline with Withdrawal Agreement signed by the UK and EU on the UK losing its member status. The only thing that has yet to happen is that this passes parliament and is ratified, once that happens the UK will leave the EU on Oct 31st and Northern Ireland will be unaffected due to being functionally no different from the rest of Ireland. That''s the backstop.

You were comfortable in calling what i proposed fiction, but when i challenge your statements, not so much. I understand now why you referred to May's WA as a "dog's breakfast" i would too if i imagined an alternative result was possible, but May DID TRY the route you suggested because quite a few of those leave MPs were part of the negotiating team and cabinet. They were politely informed that the negotiations did not have everything on the table and that it dealt with leaving the EU, cessation of membership and benefits only. She delivered the maximum amount that she could from the triggering of Article 50. That it is unpalatable to those who want a more pure form of Brexit is just unfortunate.

I wish you applied the same attention to your own statements as you seem to do to mine.

Back to the start for a moment. It is utterly self evident that you cannot solve the "NI border problem" (your words) by placing a border on GB between England and Scotland, so bad it's not even a unicorn. A little self reflection and this should be obvious.

Your latest post is hard work to parse as it is so mixed up and contradictory, I'll raise a few essential points.

zerne wrote:It relies on presenting the negotiations as some free-for-all hagglefest where everything is on the table. The problem is that they are not. The negotiations are about the member state leaving the EU and losing it current status and benefits.

I don't think you are as informed on the issue as you make out. However, specifically on the negotiations alone; your own words,

It relies on presenting the negotiations as some free-for-all hagglefest where everything is on the table.

Barnier literally placed a smorgasbord of all the possible future relationships on the table, from all the relationships that exist with the EU, and then explained why the consequences of May's red lines, prevent the level of access the UK wanted (unicorns).

Your own words,

The negotiations are about the member state leaving the EU and losing it current status and benefits.

Completely wrong, the Barnier chart shows how each relationship has less and less integration and trade and cooperation involved in each. Now consider that the EU is a technocratic superpower, they do things in a rational and logical manner. It is a nonsense to suggest they would (voluntarily) deconstruct 40 years of integration, so that at the end of the process all rights and benefits are stripped away, only to then reconstruct them (from scratch one supposes?) should the relationship have been the Norway or Swiss option. No, the only benefits that are lost are the ones that are not a part of the "off the shelf" relationship. The Barnier chart lays it out, so the Norway option would, amongst other things, have meant that there would be no Council voting rights and the ECJ would not directly apply, everything else, including the four freedoms would not have been removed all the way through the process beginning to end.

It is only due to the fact that the UK red lines pointed to an FTA as the new relationship, that all our acquired rights and benefits are being removed.

zerne wrote:I understand now why you referred to May's WA as a "dog's breakfast" i would too if i imagined an alternative result was possible, but May DID TRY the route you suggested because quite a few of those leave MPs were part of the negotiating team and cabinet. They were politely informed that the negotiations did not have everything on the table and that it dealt with leaving the EU, cessation of membership and benefits only. She delivered the maximum amount that she could from the triggering of Article 50. That it is unpalatable to those who want a more pure form of Brexit is just unfortunate.

This is more nonsense I'm afraid. She tried to get more than her own red lines allowed and was swiftly re-buffed.

Zerne, I have tried to take a fair and reasoned view of the meaning of your own words and statements throughout, and answered according to what you have stated. I have very low confidence that agreement on anything is possible, hopefully I am wrong.

Last word is yours I'm out

fisherman wrote:I wish you applied the same attention to your own statements as you seem to do to mine.

Back to the start for a moment. It is utterly self evident that you cannot solve the "NI border problem" (your words) by placing a border on GB between England and Scotland, so bad it's not even a unicorn. A little self reflection and this should be obvious.

If you concede that the drawing of the hard borders is within the purview of the UK Government, then they could have been different. Even now they could extend the principles that govern NI to other areas through the introduction of additional amendments. Not likely in the current circumstances, but not impossible either. However, as i pointed out, the current path makes another independence referendum inevitable. So that hard customs border between Scotland and England might be there before too long anyways.

fisherman wrote:Your latest post is hard work to parse as it is so mixed up and contradictory, I'll raise a few essential points.

zerne wrote:It relies on presenting the negotiations as some free-for-all hagglefest where everything is on the table. The problem is that they are not. The negotiations are about the member state leaving the EU and losing it current status and benefits.

I don't think you are as informed on the issue as you make out. However, specifically on the negotiations alone; your own words,

It relies on presenting the negotiations as some free-for-all hagglefest where everything is on the table.

Barnier literally placed a smorgasbord of all the possible future relationships on the table, from all the relationships that exist with the EU, and then explained why the consequences of May's red lines, prevent the level of access the UK wanted (unicorns).

First Step, Top Left. UK LEAVES THE EU
(that's at the conclusion of Article 50 by the way)
the next steps are the future arrangements possible. Yup the demands of the UK Government to gain 3rd Party status meant that those options could not be catered for. But again, as we've established, that was down to the UK. They requested the loss of freedoms and all that lovely stuff including not paying for anything. The EU provided what was asked for in that respect as it is obliged to do. You'll note the big check for against S.Korea and Canada - but even if the UK named a bespoke deal between the EU and UK as their preferred future arrangement it still wouldn't begin until after the conclusion of article 50.

fisherman wrote:Your own words,

The negotiations are about the member state leaving the EU and losing it current status and benefits.

Completely wrong, the Barnier chart shows how each relationship has less and less integration and trade and cooperation involved in each. Now consider that the EU is a technocratic superpower, they do things in a rational and logical manner. It is a nonsense to suggest they would (voluntarily) deconstruct 40 years of integration, so that at the end of the process all rights and benefits are stripped away, only to then reconstruct them (from scratch one supposes?) should the relationship have been the Norway or Swiss option. No, the only benefits that are lost are the ones that are not a part of the "off the shelf" relationship. The Barnier chart lays it out, so the Norway option would, amongst other things, have meant that there would be no Council voting rights and the ECJ would not directly apply, everything else, including the four freedoms would not have been removed all the way through the process beginning to end.

I will concede that in another referendum, another world, in an alternate UK that was pushing for the same situation as Norway, EFTA memberships an was determined to trade in its current EU membership for that and had that referendum passed. The UK Government triggering A50 with those demands would have been granted the continuation of those freedoms necessary to qualify for EFTA membership.
However, they would still have to complete the process of Article 50, to diminish their status and finish on the agreed date BEFORE applying for the new group. As your slide shows. The article 50 process completes before future arrangements can commence.

fisherman wrote:It is only due to the fact that the UK red lines pointed to an FTA as the new relationship, that all our acquired rights and benefits are being removed.

The UKs red lines were entailed by the majority of people who wanted to leave the EU, and by that they wanted to stop paying in, wanted to rescind jurisdiction and get rid of the freedoms. Her hands were pretty much tied in that. With those demands in mind she did the best possible deal. Still. She's in a happier place now. Apparently she has been practicing a new dance routine. Inspired by Boris Johnson they say. The finale has her repeatedly curb stomping a watermelon.

fisherman wrote:

zerne wrote:I understand now why you referred to May's WA as a "dog's breakfast" i would too if i imagined an alternative result was possible, but May DID TRY the route you suggested because quite a few of those leave MPs were part of the negotiating team and cabinet. They were politely informed that the negotiations did not have everything on the table and that it dealt with leaving the EU, cessation of membership and benefits only. She delivered the maximum amount that she could from the triggering of Article 50. That it is unpalatable to those who want a more pure form of Brexit is just unfortunate.

This is more nonsense I'm afraid. She tried to get more than her own red lines allowed and was swiftly re-buffed.

Zerne, I have tried to take a fair and reasoned view of the meaning of your own words and statements throughout, and answered according to what you have stated. I have very low confidence that agreement on anything is possible, hopefully I am wrong.

Last word is yours I'm out

The confusion is due to you referring to the real world events with a hypothetical scenario has a completely different set of circumstances and completely different demands. The way article 50 was triggered in the real world was to request 3rd party status. Under your scenario there is a still a loss of status, removal of membership and representation at the EU level, yet under both scenarios it is only when the Article 50 process finishes that trade negotiations commence. Yup, the EU can do a lot for a country that has another destination in mind by retaining in place some of the benefits granted by the respective levels of access. It is merely reduction rather than total loss of privileges. But it is very clear that trade negotiations only begin after A50 ends.

Remember chaps the EU has changed after the elections. New leaders and Parliament in charge. Things will change but not for the UK's benefit that is certain.

Starts tomorrow, there's already proposals for amending the number of MEPs after the UK leaves. Business as usual.

Whilst here in the UK we have pissing contest between Bojo and Hunt with both promising all sort along with the No Deal scenario that originally was unthinkable. No detail on how they will do anything they've said.

The UK Government is currently experiencing some political difficulties, please stand by.
We appreciate your patience in this matter and normal service will be resumed as swiftly as possible.

Surely by now, this is normal service.

It is unsustainable though, we've reached a tipping point in the UK where a change is almost inevitable.

There is a broad coalition of Brexit parties unified in leaving the EU. It ranges from the centre to the right of UK politics and represents a rejection of the larger collaboration of countries within the EU. The impetus behind this movement is a collection of complaints largely caused by the Austerity policy pursued by the Conservatives with a little help from the Lib Dems. I should add that this is mostly across England.

It's not supported in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar. Scotland in particular has a distinct centre-left wing political representation that has held power for the last 10 years which has implemented policies to counteract Austerity and expand public services that is very pro-EU. That movement is in direct opposition to Brexit.

The Withdrawal Agreement, implemented as it is, would trigger the call for an independence referendum with the potential outcome of Scotland dissolving the union and becoming independent. UK Parliament has not agreed the WA and no-one has enough support to progress, so things are kinda stalemated. But something has to give.

*titter*

BREAKING: Theresa May will travel to Scotland on the eve of a Tory leadership hustings on Friday, to launch a review of devolution and warn of the risk to the Union from a no-deal Brexit

https://twitter.com/thistlejohn/status/ ... 1864144896