A voice of reason said "It is too technical to leave to the leaders at the last min"

[Zak33]

Something that you have all mentioned before this moment has just shown up in a line on Reuters.

It is the simple fact that.. our leaders, across the EU, dont have to implement any of the actual stuff that needs implementing.

Other people do.. and they cant do it in a split second.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKBN1W30QG

In amongst all that, is this

“If that is the case, the summit will end with nothing,” an EU diplomat dealing with Brexit in Brussels said. “If there is to be a deal, it must be prepared to a large extent in advance. It is too technical to leave to the leaders at the last minute.”

and they are right, who ever they are.

===

And to a certain extent, some of the EU leaders are currently looking for watertight underwear too....

A majority of EU lawmakers later voted for an extension to Britain’s scheduled departure date in a resolution that is not binding but which has political weight.

[spacein_vader]

I'd agree with the assessment. Even a no-deal nothing agreed Brexit can be mostly mitigates with a year or so to prep. If it all goes sour on October the 17th we'll have 2 weeks and on that timeline things can and will go wrong.

Don't get me wrong, planning has been underway for that scenario for some time but it's mostly theory, 2 weeks isn't long enough to put it all into practice.

Medicines is a good example. If the NHS knew for certain we will leave without a deal in 1 year there'd be time to build storage to stockpile, even facilities for items that need to be chilled or deep frozen. You could also arrange for future shipments to come through a specific port thats only used for medicine's to avoid it getting held up in a customs queue. Can't do that in a fortnight .

[TeePee]

It should have been something that was planned for. There were two years, even before the delays. The problem is, government has been focused only on delaying/blocking. But if there's a further delay, all that does is provide more time for delaying/blocking. It doesn't help. Planning/implementing for no deal could start now, but the response to that is 'BoJo doesn't want a deal, the isn't even trying', etc...

[spacein_vader]

It should have been something that was planned for. There were two years, even before the delays. The problem is, government has been focused only on delaying/blocking. But if there's a further delay, all that does is provide more time for delaying/blocking. It doesn't help. Planning/implementing for no deal could start now, but the response to that is 'BoJo doesn't want a deal, the isn't even trying', etc...

The planning has happened and is still happening, what hasn't happened is actions on that plan.

The actions don't occur because they involve spending large sums of money, which nobody can justify while the government line is that we're trying to get a deal. Nobody wants to be the one who spent millions of public money on something that wasn't needed because we then got a deal.

Further time does help there, but ONLY if it occurs after a definitive final decision that will not be altered has occured. Deal or not doesn't matter, just give us time to put plans into action when the outcome is known.

[TeePee]

The planning has happened and is still happening, what hasn't happened is actions on that plan.

The actions don't occur because they involve spending large sums of money, which nobody can justify while the government line is that we're trying to get a deal. Nobody wants to be the one who spent millions of public money on something that wasn't needed because we then got a deal.

Further time does help there, but ONLY if it occurs after a definitive final decision that will not be altered has occured. Deal or not doesn't matter, just give us time to put plans into action when the outcome is known.

But that's the problem. They can't do that, because that feeds the whole 'BoJo doesn't want a deal' idiocy. At this point, leaving without a deal is the only way to get a deal.

[spacein_vader]

But that's the problem. They can't do that, because that feeds the whole 'BoJo doesn't want a deal' idiocy. At this point, leaving without a deal is the only way to get a deal.

And that's fine. But when the deal getting (or not,) comes to a conclusion at the summit next month then extending regardless of the outcome will allow for a much smoother transition. 2 weeks simply isn't long enough.

[TeePee]

And that's fine. But when the deal getting (or not,) comes to a conclusion at the summit next month then extending regardless of the outcome will allow for a much smoother transition. 2 weeks simply isn't long enough.

That maybe, but the second no deal is mentioned, the 'reeeeee' from the people who want to remain and complain a lot begins. The EU have made it clear that there is no deal that will be acceptable, when they are being given control to delay Brexit. Taking that control away from them is the only way to get a deal.

[Saracen999]

The planning has happened and is still happening, what hasn't happened is actions on that plan.

The actions don't occur because they involve spending large sums of money, which nobody can justify while the government line is that we're trying to get a deal. Nobody wants to be the one who spent millions of public money on something that wasn't needed because we then got a deal.

Further time does help there, but ONLY if it occurs after a definitive final decision that will not be altered has occured. Deal or not doesn't matter, just give us time to put plans into action when the outcome is known.

Personally, leaving with no deal is not my preferred option. But is is an acceptable alternative to leaving with a manifestly unacceptable deal, or not leaving at all.

If, and I stress IF there was a way of leaving months, or even a year, later than our current deadline, I personally, even asca convinced leaver, would go for that.

Provided it was nailed shut What isn't acceptable (to me) is a never-ending series of delays when we know, or at least very strongly believe, the objective of many proponents isn't to provide time for an agreed and orderly exit, but to prevaricate while they try to stop us leaving at all.

The problem will be in arranging a dewl to be nailed down, and by that I mean irrevocably legally committed, without delaying while not nailing it down. I guess we could call that an "implementation period".

Therecis of course wn old arfgument, that the EU only ever does deals at the last minute, once it becomes clear that the alternative is a right-now no-deal.

The closest I can see us conceivably getting is that political leaders can agree things at 23:59, and agree what is going to be done, and the kawyers abd bureaucrats can then write it up.

The biggest problem is that of exactly what Theresa May found .... leaders can agree a deal but if all of them, and it only takes one holdout, can't then get it past their parliaments, 7t all falls apart.

Our best hope is thatvour leaders agree the deal, and it includes the best compromises both sides can agree to, and that deal comes with a deadline specifying that at that deadline, one of two things automatically happens :-

1) Brexit goes ahead on the basis of that deal, or

2 If for whatever reason, 1) does not occur, a no-deal happens automatically.

This precludes yet more last-minure special-interest arm-twisting and gives everybody a simple binary chouce between ratifying the agreed deal (assuming our esteemed leaders can actually agree anything more than the summit dinner menu) or no-deal.

But to my mind, any further delays at all have to be for a good reason, both limited and specific in duration, and utterly unalterable, by anyone and for any reason.

[Zak33]

The "deal" in whatever format it takes, will be convoluted beyond the powers of the leaders to arrange. Systems, processes and intercontivity.

Melts my brain tbh.