RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
Listening to the debate I doubt there are more than a handful of conservative mps who will vote against
That the EU have it written in the agreement that the Truss Bill, law to override some post-Brexit trade rules, gets binned. So as a ERG Sceptic you have to be really sure Windsor Deal does tidy up your issues with this - break clause, checks in Irish Sea, ECJ trumping UK law - before binning that legislation taking you backwards on your approach?
So on that alone there could be 100+ Tory against or abstentions, depending on how DUP and ERG can pick apart Daisy and Rishi’s spin before any vote.
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
May negotiated that we would be aligned dynamically in the backstop. We are not. This is nothing like May.
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
They are the real tragedy not the deal, and the DUP have not rejected the deal
Paisley Jnr has already rejected the Deal, he is a DUP MP and son of the party's founder
And a knobstick. Don't forget that part, it's quite important.
I'm sure they will reject it because they're ultimately stupid sods for whom nothing short of the nuking of Dublin would ever be quite sufficient. But with Starmer and every other major party in Northern Ireland behind him Sunak can stare the DUP down, and he should.
Ultimately, Ian Paisley decided he was willing to compromise when he realised that his refusal was part of the problem and he needed to bend in order to achieve something positive. Sadly his heirs seem to have all his belligerence and anger with none of his personal humility.
Listening to the debate I doubt there are more than a handful of conservative mps who will vote against
That the EU have it written in the agreement that the Truss Bill, law to override some post-Brexit trade rules, gets binned. So as a ERG Sceptic you have to be really sure Windsor Deal does tidy up your issues with this - break clause, checks in Irish Sea, ECJ trumping UK law - before binning that legislation taking you backwards on your approach?
So on that alone there could be 100+ Tory against or abstentions, depending on how DUP and ERG can pick apart Daisy and Rishi’s spin before any vote.
Let's see.
I suspect no more than 20 CON abstentions or votes against, maybe somewhat fewer, time to move on!
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
They are the real tragedy not the deal, and the DUP have not rejected the deal
Paisley Jnr has already rejected the Deal, he is a DUP MP and son of the party's founder
The DUP have not rejected the deal no matter what Paisley has said
You can be sure if Paisley Jnr has rejected the Deal so soon will Donaldson and Wilson.
Donaldson has said proress has been made but 'Donaldson (DUP) makes a short holding statement: "Significant progress" alongside "key issues of concern". (EU law remains applicable in NI in a different way to rest of UK, he says). DUP will assess against the 7 tests in their last manifesto.' https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1630286553539854339?s=20 'Sammy Wilson (DUP)...does not have confidence in the agreement - because of existing EU law applying to NI, and because of new laws being applied unless vetoed.' https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1630293498267070464?s=20
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
What a pack of wasters.
Dare we hope this starts to help the UUP recover?
Can't we just get rid of Northern Ireland? A bunch of recalcitrant bigots on one side and a bunch of terrorist sympathizers on the other. All of which cost us 180m a year in subsidies. Let the Republic have them. At least that will be one fewer way Ireland sponges off its neighbours.
No they are as British as Finchley to quote Thatcher
Just watching the NI statement in Parliament. Currently it is the SNP Leader, Flynn. What a complete moron. A contemptible contribution, following Sunak, Starmer and May. I really feel quite angry about it.
We should remember that as well as BoZo, Frost, Francois and Mogg, today is also a very bad day for the SNP
There I disagree, and if the SNP take time to pause and reflect they will (if they're sensible) disagree too. It shows you can have in effect a minimalist border between the U.K. and the EU. Which is vital to any economic case made for independence and particularly any such case that involves Scotland rejoining the EU.
It would also weaken claims of a hard border at Gretna.
"The hard border on the Tweed but not on the Foyle" always was a warped fantasy of some of the more extreme PBers.
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
They are the real tragedy not the deal, and the DUP have not rejected the deal
Paisley Jnr has already rejected the Deal, he is a DUP MP and son of the party's founder
The DUP have not rejected the deal no matter what Paisley has said
To be fair to HY he’s merely reporting Junior did sound sceptical of the type of break in this agreement, that when you pull it nothing stops immediately and potentially never will. That fails the first deal measurement test doesn’t it? A deal breaker, no pun intended.
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
I do hope today isn't like a typical Budget Day, with the frenetic rush to judgement. Everything in the garden looks rosy - until it gradually unravels over the next 48 hours. It does look promising, though.
So what Tory crazy thing will Sunak undo next? He’s done Trussonomics and NI Brexit. How about leaving the customs union or universal credit?
On the basis that he's undoing his predecessors' greatest mistakes in reverse chronological order, we're next looking for a legacy from May's leadership to undo.
Could he... fix social care funding? Make Britain a welcoming place for immigrants? Abolish the energy price cap?
Listening to the debate I doubt there are more than a handful of conservative mps who will vote against
That the EU have it written in the agreement that the Truss Bill, law to override some post-Brexit trade rules, gets binned. So as a ERG Sceptic you have to be really sure Windsor Deal does tidy up your issues with this - break clause, checks in Irish Sea, ECJ trumping UK law - before binning that legislation taking you backwards on your approach?
So on that alone there could be 100+ Tory against or abstentions, depending on how DUP and ERG can pick apart Daisy and Rishi’s spin before any vote.
The Windsor deal gets rid of ECJ law in 97% of remaining cases, no checks in Irish sea for NI bound goods, and has a brake clause that unionists can pull on their own for new EU laws in that 3%.
What happens next is will there or not be a vote, and on what exactly, do we know for sure yet? The government made clear over weekend there wouldn’t be.
That the EU have it written in the agreement that the Truss Bill, law to override some post-Brexit trade rules, gets binned. So as a DUP or ERG or Labour Sceptic you have to be really sure Windsor Deal does tidy up your issues with this, before binning that legislation taking you backwards on your approach?
So if there is a vote on binning the Truss Bill, 100+ Tory against or abstentions, up to 30 Labour against or abstentions?
There doesn't need to be a vote on withdrawing the NIP Bill. The government just doesn't timetable its remaining stages and it automatically falls at the end of the session.
What about MPs unhappy with Windsor agreement binning Truss Law prematurely in their opinion, what is open to them getting a vote - or, learning from the chaos of the May years, getting an amendment agreed on something else, to rally round in a vote on that?
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
They are the real tragedy not the deal, and the DUP have not rejected the deal
Paisley Jnr has already rejected the Deal, he is a DUP MP and son of the party's founder
And a knobstick. Don't forget that part, it's quite important.
I'm sure they will reject it because they're ultimately stupid sods for whom nothing short of the nuking of Dublin would ever be quite sufficient. But with Starmer and every other major party in Northern Ireland behind him Sunak can stare the DUP down, and he should.
Ultimately, Ian Paisley decided he was willing to compromise when he realised that his refusal was part of the problem and he needed to bend in order to achieve something positive. Sadly his heirs seem to have all his belligerence and anger with none of his personal humility.
Paisley Snr rejected the Good Friday Agreement, he just compromised when the DUP were top party to make himself FM of NI
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
A reminder, as one or two seem to be forgetting, that the DUP claim to be boycotting Stormont because of the Protocol but in reality are boycotting it because Sinn Fein are the largest party.
They may accept this deal (although I doubt it, because they don't want to lose their grievance) but that will not, in itself, automatically restore Stormont.
It is also a very good reason to ignore anything they say on this that isn't grounded in detailed, careful analysis of the legal text, which given we're talking about the DUP, is unlikely to be forthcoming.
The ERG are the more important group here. Sure, Sunak can pass the bill without them. But if they accept this deal his authority in the party will be greatly enhanced and it will stabilise his government.
What happens next is will there or not be a vote, and on what exactly, do we know for sure yet? The government made clear over weekend there wouldn’t be.
That the EU have it written in the agreement that the Truss Bill, law to override some post-Brexit trade rules, gets binned. So as a DUP or ERG or Labour Sceptic you have to be really sure Windsor Deal does tidy up your issues with this, before binning that legislation taking you backwards on your approach?
So if there is a vote on binning the Truss Bill, 100+ Tory against or abstentions, up to 30 Labour against or abstentions?
There doesn't need to be a vote on withdrawing the NIP Bill. The government just doesn't timetable its remaining stages and it automatically falls at the end of the session.
What about MPs unhappy with Windsor agreement binning Truss Law prematurely in their opinion, what is open to them getting a vote - or, learning from the chaos of the May years, getting an amendment agreed on something else, to rally round in a vote on that?
Just watching the NI statement in Parliament. Currently it is the SNP Leader, Flynn. What a complete moron. A contemptible contribution, following Sunak, Starmer and May. I really feel quite angry about it.
We should remember that as well as BoZo, Frost, Francois and Mogg, today is also a very bad day for the SNP
There I disagree, and if the SNP take time to pause and reflect they will (if they're sensible) disagree too. It shows you can have in effect a minimalist border between the U.K. and the EU. Which is vital to any economic case made for independence and particularly any such case that involves Scotland rejoining the EU.
It would also weaken claims of a hard border at Gretna.
"The hard border on the Tweed but not on the Foyle" always was a warped fantasy of some of the more extreme PBers.
There is still a border in the Irish Sea, just a bit easier to send goods from GB to NI but not so much the reverse.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Clauses 62 to 63:
The Stormont Brake will apply to changes to EU customs, goods, and agriculture rules within the scope of the original Protocol1, with a specific process to follow to trigger it: ● When the institutions are restored, the trigger for the Brake will operate on the same basis as a separate ‘Petition of Concern’ within the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, as updated by the New Decade, New Approach Agreement in 2020, allowing a concern to be raised based on 30 MLAs from two or more parties coming together to sign a petition. ● The UK Government will consult with the local parties to ensure that a proper scrutiny process is established for a restored Assembly, with support from the UK Government, and MLAs operating a structured process to consider the potential impacts and their response. We will consult with the parties in Northern Ireland on how to codify domestically this defined process of scrutiny, consultation with businesses and others affected by the EU act in question, as well as providing time to identify any other routes to resolution, ensuring that the Brake is only deployed as the last mechanism available to deal with the concerns. ● The Brake will not be available for trivial reasons: there must be something ‘significantly’ different about a new rule, whether in its content or scope, and MLAs will need to show that the rule has a ‘significant impact specific to everyday life’ that is liable to persist. ● The Brake will be available to MLAs to apply to specific elements of new goods rules changes or to the entirety of a new law. Even if only a limited part of an EU Directive or Regulation is changed, the Brake can still be used if the new content of the rules are significant and the impact will be damaging.
63.Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No, we are not. We are not heading to be part of the EU customs union at all. Northern Ireland just got removed from it.
May’s deal envisaged the end of the customs union. While critics had a point that exiting the customs union wasn’t as simple as sucking on a lollipop, it wasn’t this demented condition of “vassalage” either.
That was all bollocks, promoted by a the corrupt clown and his enablers.
No, it didn't. It locked us in the Customs Union.
That is indeed the myth, eagerly promoted by a pack of grifters.
No doubt you also bought a monorail.
You talk in blanket statements and metaphors when you don't have any arguments. How would May's deal have got us out of the Customs Union?
Of course, for 48% of voters, plus enough of the 52% to together form a majority, that would not have been a problem.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
Go on then, why don't you back up your bluster with actual text from the agreement?
Here is betting you won't because you are 100% wrong.
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No, we are not. We are not heading to be part of the EU customs union at all. Northern Ireland just got removed from it.
May’s deal envisaged the end of the customs union. While critics had a point that exiting the customs union wasn’t as simple as sucking on a lollipop, it wasn’t this demented condition of “vassalage” either.
That was all bollocks, promoted by a the corrupt clown and his enablers.
No, it didn't. It locked us in the Customs Union.
That is indeed the myth, eagerly promoted by a pack of grifters.
No doubt you also bought a monorail.
You talk in blanket statements and metaphors when you don't have any arguments. How would May's deal have got us out of the Customs Union?
Of course, for 48% of voters, plus enough of the 52% to together form a majority, that would not have been a problem.
Not necessarily, for example, I am a Remainer, but staying in the Customs Union is not a stable or desirable outcome of Brexit.
A reminder, as one or two seem to be forgetting, that the DUP claim to be boycotting Stormont because of the Protocol but in reality are boycotting it because Sinn Fein are the largest party.
They may accept this deal (although I doubt it, because they don't want to lose their grievance) but that will not, in itself, automatically restore Stormont.
It is also a very good reason to ignore anything they say on this that isn't grounded in detailed, careful analysis of the legal text, which given we're talking about the DUP, is unlikely to be forthcoming.
The ERG are the more important group here. Sure, Sunak can pass the bill without them. But if they accept this deal his authority in the party will be greatly enhanced and it will stabilise his government.
The early noises don't mean much politically; John Major's Maastricht deal was initially hailed by everyone as "game, set and match". And we know how that ended up.
So the key questions are whether the ERG want a fight (and some do seem to have gone a bit floppy) and whether there are enough of them to cause real trouble (seems unlikely right now). Without an angry crowd to put himself at the head of, Boris probably won't bother either.
And if BoJo's bluff has been called, that's a good day's work.
Deltapoll @DeltapollUK 🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨 Labour lead is fifteen points in latest results from Deltapoll. Con 31% (+3) Lab 46% (-4) Lib Dem 8% (-1) Other 15% (+3) Fieldwork: 24th - 27th February Sample: 1,060 GB adults (Changes from 17th - 20th February 2023)
RefUK also join the DUP in opposition to the Deal, no surprise there
'@LBC ‘We’re ending up with Brexit in name only - we’re not cutting taxes, we’re not deregulating and therefore we’re not taking advantage of the opportunities of Brexit.’
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
And what if the EU didn't agree to a deal? It took the threat of no deal to get the TCA signed and a very hard deadline set by Frost to simply force the EU to the table and get a deal done. We had the right to choose that path, in the May agreement we lost our right to choose our own path. It would be an unhappy marriage with one partner refusing a divorce and the other unable to leave.
What incentive would the EU have to negotiate any deal with the UK when the existing arrangement keeps the UK wholly within the EU's regulatory orbit and in total lockstep with EU rules and no legal remit for the UK to diverge other than a hugely damaging abrogation of the treaty? Zero, that's how much.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Intentions are meaningless without practicalities.
May's deal would have kept us in the backstop with no unilateral way out. It was worse than not leaving. Be better off staying in, in Article 50, than to leave to something you can't unilaterally leave.
Plus part of what got this deal over the line was the computer systems working on post Brexit trade in practice, something that couldn't happen if we hadn't left in practice as we were still in purgatory.
The DUP are a bunch of prize knobends. What purpose do they serve beyond perennially agitating for endless dispute and disruption? Let the Alliance self-designate as Unionist for constitution convenience and Michelle O'Neill can lead NI as FM without the moronic Orange Brigade. Naomi Long as DFM.
No, the UUP could do that if they back the Deal, not the Alliance
If the DUP refuse to take part in governing their own province, nominate the next biggest party. Find a way! Change the law if necessary.
So abolish the Good Friday Agreement. 🤔
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
Just for lols - the reason that nothing happens in NI without the agreement of the biggest 2 sectarian parties was the Nationalists/Republicans . Whose concern was that simple democracy would end up with eternal Unionist rule. Again.
Coming up with it was the key reason the Good Friday Agreement was voted in.
Boris Johnson's response to the deal, when it comes, will have nothing whatsoever to do with the merits (or otherwise) of the deal.
His response will be governed entirely by Machiavellian political self-interest - which response will garner him the greatest favour with the wider Tory membership? I suspect because of this he'll let it be known that he can live with the deal, as I don't think opposing it would go down well with the grass roots.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
I expect Sunak and the Tories to get a bounce from this deal . Not sure it will last but credit to Sunak for being pragmatic and willing to take a political gamble . When he says he cares about the people of NI I tend to believe him .
I think any benefit for Sunak will take a bit longer to manifest. If it does it will be because:
1) The central charge by Labour, that he is weak and at the mercy of events (not to mention BJ) - which was gaining traction - has been undermined by this deal. 2) He will now, clearly, be in charge of the Govt and the Party. 3) A sense that Sunak actually is capable of taking the initiative and changing the political weather, and that the Tory cause is not necessarily hopeless 4) A boost to his own confidence and authority which will, over time, communicate itself to the voters
It won't be immediate. It may not happen. Events may intercede. But there is, just, a glimmer of hope.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
I looked, in section 63 it says there will be settlement by arbitration under international treaty law, not by the ECJ under EU law. Can you link the section which says otherwise?
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
And what if the EU didn't agree to a deal? It took the threat of no deal to get the TCA signed and a very hard deadline set by Frost to simply force the EU to the table and get a deal done. We had the right to choose that path, in the May agreement we lost our right to choose our own path. It would be an unhappy marriage with one partner refusing a divorce and the other unable to leave.
What incentive would the EU have to negotiate any deal with the UK when the existing arrangement keeps the UK wholly within the EU's regulatory orbit and in total lockstep with EU rules and no legal remit for the UK to diverge other than a hugely damaging abrogation of the treaty? Zero, that's how much.
The same argument could in theory be levelled at any deal. Article 16 for example does not actually provide a complete get out of jail free card.
A UK stuck unwillingly inside a customs union - should that have been the EU’s intention - is not a stable status quo. First rule of negotiation is to reach an agreement that both parties can live with. Ultimately the UK could have abrogated the treaty and indeed, as I’ve argued even with Boris’s agreement, the UK retained significant leverage merely by owning many of the “facts on the ground”.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
Go on then, why don't you back up your bluster with actual text from the agreement?
Here is betting you won't because you are 100% wrong.
"Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law."
You need to take the hysterical head you are wearing off, and put your DUP head on - and with that on how does “ 30 members of the NI assembly across two parties” sound to you?
If I thought you seriously believed we’d ever rejoin (as opposed to you just being provocative) I’d invest the time in showing why it’s off the table. But you don’t.
Incrementalism.
We’ll keep on getting closer alignment.
To quote a Leaver friend is today closer to our EU membership than yesterday?
No it isn’t, it’s further away than under the protocol. Bad example.
What people like you forget is that the EU hasn’t been frozen and won’t remain frozen. As the years pass by, integration into the single market will get harder and harder, and more and more disruptive.
The dream of serious divergence just isn't going to happen.
Have you worked with the EU? I’ve lost track of the directives and regulations in the pipeline because it no longer matters; but for one things I’d assume there’s going to be a Mifid 3. Without us in the room, that will loek reintroduce a concentration rule by default amongst other things. That’s massive.
See also digital and data standards.
Physical products? Very little difference.
The directives and regulations we would have passed versions of anyway. Like I said, the dream of serious divergence is not going to happen because it would be ridiculously unpopular.
You are missing the point
Are we going to unwind much existing regulation - unlikely.
Are we going to mirror all future EU changes - also unlikely
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
Sunak hasn't trashed Boris's work, quite the opposite. This is a continuation of what Boris and Truss were negotiating via the NI Protocol Bill.
If this is such a trashing, perhaps you could name the key differences between what Boris was proposing eight months ago, and what was negotiated today.
Today is continuity Boris. It just has a different name on the tin, as Boris has gone now.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
I looked, in section 63 it says there will be settlement by arbitration under international treaty law, not by the ECJ under EU law. Can you link the section which says otherwise?
She can't because she's lying. You can always tell the internet antagonists who are wrong but don't have the intellectual confidence to admit it. They resort to short comments, emojis and vague assertions.
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Basically the argument rests on whether the “backstop” arrangements were in the interests of the EU against potential negotiated alternatives down the line. Those arguing the “purgatory” position were either taking the position that they were, or that the EU did not seek to act in its own interests where those interests might also coincide with the UK’s and potential to demonstrate “success” of Brexit. The “insurance” advocates basically disagree with this, argue that the backstop was an unstable position in neither party’s interests and that reality would drive its eventual replacement.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
It was Boris who got Brexit done, today is just tweeks to the Irish Sea border
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
Sunak hasn't trashed Boris's work, quite the opposite. This is a continuation of what Boris and Truss were negotiating via the NI Protocol Bill.
If this is such a trashing, perhaps you could name the key differences between what Boris was proposing eight months ago, and what was negotiated today.
Today is continuity Boris. It just has a different name on the tin, as Boris has gone now.
Lol. The contrarian lives!
Yet Johnson himself is holed up somewhere wondering if he has the capital and backing to oppose the deal.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
Go on then, why don't you back up your bluster with actual text from the agreement?
Here is betting you won't because you are 100% wrong.
"Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law."
You need to take the hysterical head you are wearing off, and put your DUP head on - and with that on how does “ 30 members of the NI assembly across two parties” sound to you?
"Not subject to ECJ oversight"
You claimed the direct opposite. Can you not read?
As it happens, HMG ended up trying to legislate for the abrogation of Boris’s deal anyway.
The idea that May’s agreement was “forever” while Boris’s a mere stepping stone to sunlit uplands is a nonsense. If so, no abrogation would ever have been entertained.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
No. It goes to arbitration.
Edit - I think you're confusing two issues. Where EU law still applies, which is now in 3% of cases where it previously applied, the CJEU will still interpret that law and its interpretation will be accepted because that's where such laws are decided. But any new law can be objected to via a petition at Stormont and that will be decided not by the CJEU but by an arbitration panel.
Take another look. 😁
Go on then, why don't you back up your bluster with actual text from the agreement?
Here is betting you won't because you are 100% wrong.
"Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law."
You need to take the hysterical head you are wearing off, and put your DUP head on - and with that on how does “ 30 members of the NI assembly across two parties” sound to you?
It means that the DUP have to ask the UUP nicely to agree with them, rather than just triggering it all the time to play silly buggers?
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
Sunak hasn't trashed Boris's work, quite the opposite. This is a continuation of what Boris and Truss were negotiating via the NI Protocol Bill.
If this is such a trashing, perhaps you could name the key differences between what Boris was proposing eight months ago, and what was negotiated today.
Today is continuity Boris. It just has a different name on the tin, as Boris has gone now.
Lol. The contrarian lives!
Yet Johnson himself is holed up somewhere wondering if he has the capital and backing to oppose the deal.
Purely because he's fuming he's not Prime Minister and getting the credit for this.
Not because this is different to what he was negotiating. Not because he gives a damn about the people of Northern Ireland.
Look into your heart and mind, you know I'm right.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
I have to say Sunak is demolitioning Johnson's ludicrous NIP
Indeed it is astonishing just how awful it was
It was an appalling “deal” that put huge pressure on trade between Northern Ireland and the Mainland, and which surrendered sovereignty in several key areas.
Johnson and Frost were utter charlatans.
But it surrendered partial sovereinty only for Northern Ireland. That was better than May's deal which surrendered partial sovereignty for the whole UK. And that in turn was better than EU membership which suffered a whole lot more sovereignty for the whole UK.
I don’t accept this characterisation.
May’s simply booted certain arrangements into the longer term to avoid pain in the short term.
In some ways, it was a “hard” version of “Norway for now”.
What, precisely, did the UK do with Boris’s supposed additional sovereignty? It cost billions and billions in lost growth.
This is another example of how people talk across each other in this debate. No one sensible thinks Brexit made us richer. It made us poorer than we otherwise might have been, but we left for other reasons.
That’s not the debate. Your contention is that Boris’s deal was better than May’s because it delivered more sovereignty.
What is happening is that we are heading toward a macro state that is similar to what May managed to agree in the first place.
We just have had to pay several years of a Boris tax.
No we're nowhere near what May proposed. She proposed a no way out backstop for the whole of the UK. We'd still be there if that had been implemented as the inertia factor on the EU side would be huge and the inertia factor for Brexit 2 would be even bigger for the UK to pull out of the EU deal.
I don’t agree.
It's your prerogative to disagree with reality if you want, but it doesn't make for a useful discussion.
Mays deal envisaged a new and subsequent arrangement in 2020. Specific arrangements on Northern Ireland were supposed to be agreed with the EU and the UK was free to take specific proposals to a Joint Committee.
As I said in my original post, while the UK did not retain a unilateral right to just break off this agreement, it is stretching things beyond credibly to think the UK signed up to a for-ever customs union.
From a pure negotiating perspective, I can see why some want to claim that it was better to get to where we are today via the kind of hard break Boris “negotiated”, but I’m afraid that the vassalage idea around May’s deal was totally overblown, and Boris’s route cost the economy many many billions.
It wasn't overblown, it would have been the legal reality in the May deal. The UK would be stuck in the backstop with no unilateral mechanism to exit other than abrogating the treaty. Even the TCA has a 12 month divorce proceeding, the May WA didn't even have that. It was legitimately permanent purgatory for the UK stuck in the single market and customs union with no seat at the EU table and no legal mechanism to exit without the EU agreeing. It was a disaster and I said at the time it was a disaster.
What you call purgatory, I call insurance. Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
Basically the argument rests on whether the “backstop” arrangements were in the interests of the EU against potential negotiated alternatives down the line. Those arguing the “purgatory” position were either taking the position that they were, or that the EU did not seek to act in its own interests where those interests might also coincide with the UK’s and potential to demonstrate “success” of Brexit. The “insurance” advocates basically disagree with this, argue that the backstop was an unstable position in neither party’s interests and that reality would drive its eventual replacement.
I think I agree, but I’d add that the purgatorial argument just happens to tie in with what was good for Boris’s career.
Purgatorialists were played. AND it cost the economy billions.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
Rees Mogg has reservations about ECJ having final say over the Deal in NI which is still making him wary of the Deal. He says the DUP response will be key for whether the Deal will be an acceptable Deal for the whole UK.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
If Johnson is pushed back to leading a small group of the party's nutters, in opposition to what is widely seen as pragmatic good sense in the national interest, that in itself would be a humiliation.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
Sunak hasn't trashed Boris's work, quite the opposite. This is a continuation of what Boris and Truss were negotiating via the NI Protocol Bill.
If this is such a trashing, perhaps you could name the key differences between what Boris was proposing eight months ago, and what was negotiated today.
Today is continuity Boris. It just has a different name on the tin, as Boris has gone now.
Lol. The contrarian lives!
Yet Johnson himself is holed up somewhere wondering if he has the capital and backing to oppose the deal.
Purely because he's fuming he's not Prime Minister and getting the credit for this.
Not because this is different to what he was negotiating. Not because he gives a damn about the people of Northern Ireland.
Look into your heart and mind, you know I'm right.
To be fair, although I don't agree with you about Johnson having any responsibility for this deal, I don't think anything in that post of yours is controversial. That is, ultimately, why he will oppose it. Just as it's why he signed that dreadful deal that caused so much trouble in the first place.
Hopefully he and the DUP are the only opponents and then he can be slid out of parliament onto the international lecture circuit a long way from power.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
It also laid the pathway to this deal by binding the EU to a trusted trader scheme, essentially the green and red channels we have in the Windsor deal that removes checks for 97% of goods. Again, the May deal didn't have that in there and neither did it have A16. Both of those were at play over the last year while this deal was being hammered out.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
It's a brake for Northern Ireland.
It's not a brake for the DUP.
Only one of these things should actually matter to anyone except the DUP.
I wonder if what Rishi has done today will turn out to be zeitgeist changing. I mean, the scruffy old boosterism and belligerence of the Boris/Truss era now seem incredibly tired and old hat. I think politicians across the spectrum will soon be jostling to emulate Rishi, by trumpeting their own commitment to diligence, humility and compromise. As Boris shrinks in the rear-view mirror, the very memory of him and his cohorts seems almost soiling.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
It's a brake for Northern Ireland.
It's not a brake for the DUP.
Only one of these things should actually matter to anyone except the DUP.
Its actually a brake for any one NI community, so its a stronger brake than even I thought possible.
Ian Paisley Jnr says the deal doesn't 'cut the mustard.'
'Break: Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, tells me: the Windsor Framework “does not cut the mustard”. It provides no basis for the DUP to go back into government + Rishi Sunak needs to enter fresh negotiations with the EU Ian Paisley dismisses the Stormont Brake which allows the Northern Ireland assembly to block EU legislation if it has a big and lasting impact on NI. He says the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach.' https://twitter.com/nicholaswatt/status/1630270192029782017?s=20
So looks like the DUP will vote against the Deal, which means it would not meet its 1st key test of restoring the Stormont Executive
You seem to actively want the deal to fail but you are going to be disappointed notwithstanding comments from some DUP representatives
“the brake is in the boot of the car under the spare wheel and impossible to reach”
To be fair though, regardless how politicians are trying to spin the Stormount Break mechanism, 30 assembly members needed to trigger the clause - how easy is that part - which then doesn’t change a thing, merely goes first into UK courts and ultimately to EU to override UK courts to decide that you really do have ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying to have break from the agreement? So you need to take along and win with evidence of ‘exceptional circumstances’.
This is actually what is written there isn’t it?
To use the DUP analogy, a break leaver stops something when you pull it. Pull this one nothing happens for years with no guarantee anything will change.
Nope. If HMG decides to use the brake after a Stormont Petition then courts have nothing to do with it.
Nope. Not in this agreement.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Yes, in this agreement. It is there in black and white.
Is that the actual legal text, or just the Government summary of it? Genuine question.
Today also gives Sir Keir Starmer the opportunity, if he becomes Prime Minister, to unpick the wider Brexit deal to make it better.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
Absolutely spot on TSE. Today is a key moment in UK politics, for the signal it sends imminent incoming Labour government and other silent remainers - having two stabs at it, the Tories still accept ECJ having the final say.
Reread clause 63 above.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
It’s not a break though is it. A break is something you giving someone so if they pull it something stops. To the DUP this is not set up as a break for them, you concede.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
FFS why is everyone misspelling 'brake?'
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
It was preferable to a No Deal, is about all that can be said about it, while noting that Boris actually set much of the timescale and laid the tracks toward a No Deal.
At the time it was as you say better than a no deal but I doubt anyone understood how bad it was before Sunak spoke about it at the dispatch box today
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
Just possibly, perhaps you’re not the best person to go pointing the fingers at others’ u-turns?
Comments
I just wish he wasn't still taking the money.
So on that alone there could be 100+ Tory against or abstentions, depending on how DUP and ERG can pick apart Daisy and Rishi’s spin before any vote.
I'm sure they will reject it because they're ultimately stupid sods for whom nothing short of the nuking of Dublin would ever be quite sufficient. But with Starmer and every other major party in Northern Ireland behind him Sunak can stare the DUP down, and he should.
Ultimately, Ian Paisley decided he was willing to compromise when he realised that his refusal was part of the problem and he needed to bend in order to achieve something positive. Sadly his heirs seem to have all his belligerence and anger with none of his personal humility.
I suspect no more than 20 CON abstentions or votes against, maybe somewhat fewer, time to move on!
Donaldson has said proress has been made but
'Donaldson (DUP) makes a short holding statement: "Significant progress" alongside "key issues of concern". (EU law remains applicable in NI in a different way to rest of UK, he says). DUP will assess against the 7 tests in their last manifesto.'
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1630286553539854339?s=20
'Sammy Wilson (DUP)...does not have confidence in the agreement - because of existing EU law applying to NI, and because of new laws being applied unless vetoed.'
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1630293498267070464?s=20
A source close to the former prime minister told PA he is continuing to study and reflect on the Government’s proposals."
Source. Guardian live blog.
As if Johnson would ever study anything!
Could he... fix social care funding? Make Britain a welcoming place for immigrants? Abolish the energy price cap?
Likely in vain.
Anyone opposing this would have opposed any deal.
From what I've heard of the deal, I like it. It seems sensible. It seems like what I was saying we should do for years but people kept saying was an impossible unicorn.
But as far as the Good Friday Agreement goes, it isn't up to you and me who runs the province, its upto the two elected parties representing the cross community. Either a deal is reached satisfying them, or there's no deal as far as Stormont is concerned. Unless you repeal and abolish the Good Friday Agreement.
They may accept this deal (although I doubt it, because they don't want to lose their grievance) but that will not, in itself, automatically restore Stormont.
It is also a very good reason to ignore anything they say on this that isn't grounded in detailed, careful analysis of the legal text, which given we're talking about the DUP, is unlikely to be forthcoming.
The ERG are the more important group here. Sure, Sunak can pass the bill without them. But if they accept this deal his authority in the party will be greatly enhanced and it will stabilise his government.
Not the first time you got things wrong though driver, is it.
Abrogating the treaty would have been the last recourse, but the intention was actually to make a new agreement sans the customs union.
The Stormont Brake will apply to changes to EU customs, goods, and agriculture rules within the scope of the original Protocol1, with a specific process to follow to trigger it:
● When the institutions are restored, the trigger for the Brake will operate on the same basis as a separate ‘Petition of Concern’ within the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, as updated by the New Decade, New Approach Agreement in 2020, allowing a concern to be raised based on 30 MLAs from two or more parties coming together to sign a petition.
● The UK Government will consult with the local parties to ensure that a proper scrutiny process is established for a restored Assembly, with support from the UK Government, and MLAs operating a structured process to consider the potential impacts and their response. We will consult with the parties in Northern Ireland on how to codify domestically this defined process of scrutiny, consultation with businesses and others affected by the EU act in question, as well as providing time to identify any other routes to resolution, ensuring that the Brake is only deployed as the last mechanism available to deal with the concerns.
● The Brake will not be available for trivial reasons: there must be something ‘significantly’ different about a new rule, whether in its content or scope, and MLAs will need to show that the rule has a ‘significant impact specific to everyday life’ that is liable to persist.
● The Brake will be available to MLAs to apply to specific elements of new goods rules changes or to the entirety of a new law. Even if only a limited part of an EU Directive or Regulation is changed, the Brake can still be used if the new content of the rules are significant and the impact will be damaging.
63.Once the UK notifies the EU that the Brake has been triggered, the rule in question is suspended automatically from coming into effect. It can then only be subsequently applied in Northern Ireland if the UK and EU both agree to that jointly in the Joint Committee. This would give the UK an unequivocal veto - enabling the rule to be permanently disapplied - within the Joint Committee. This new safeguard in the treaty is not subject to ECJ oversight, and any dispute on this issue would be resolved through subsequent independent arbitration according to international, not EU, law.
Here is betting you won't because you are 100% wrong.
Sunak has created a great estoppel by convention for second referendum backer Starmer.
So the key questions are whether the ERG want a fight (and some do seem to have gone a bit floppy) and whether there are enough of them to cause real trouble (seems unlikely right now). Without an angry crowd to put himself at the head of, Boris probably won't bother either.
And if BoJo's bluff has been called, that's a good day's work.
It’s certainly not one of Sunils “keep calmer vote Starmer” polls that’s for sure, more one of these
'Daddy, my trump fell on the floor.'
Mays deal was worse in the long run.
The NIP was practically unworkable but got through Brexit to a point where it could be sensibly renegotiated
Judged on that metric it did what it was intended to do
What incentive would the EU have to negotiate any deal with the UK when the existing arrangement keeps the UK wholly within the EU's regulatory orbit and in total lockstep with EU rules and no legal remit for the UK to diverge other than a hugely damaging abrogation of the treaty? Zero, that's how much.
It’s like saying that the shit on the carpet “intended” that the carpet be cleaned.
So looks like ERG waiting for DUP response, then they will take the same line
May's deal would have kept us in the backstop with no unilateral way out. It was worse than not leaving. Be better off staying in, in Article 50, than to leave to something you can't unilaterally leave.
Plus part of what got this deal over the line was the computer systems working on post Brexit trade in practice, something that couldn't happen if we hadn't left in practice as we were still in purgatory.
It won a general election.
Being mad, unworkable and hugely damaging in practice is a detail for Johnson.
Coming up with it was the key reason the Good Friday Agreement was voted in.
His response will be governed entirely by Machiavellian political self-interest - which response will garner him the greatest favour with the wider Tory membership? I suspect because of this he'll let it be known that he can live with the deal, as I don't think opposing it would go down well with the grass roots.
I've helpfully bolded the key passage for you.
Trouble for him is that filing through the lobbies to back Sunak's trashing of his own work and legacy, without having anything significant to say on the matter, is also a humiliation.
1) The central charge by Labour, that he is weak and at the mercy of events (not to mention BJ) - which was gaining traction - has been undermined by this deal.
2) He will now, clearly, be in charge of the Govt and the Party.
3) A sense that Sunak actually is capable of taking the initiative and changing the political weather, and that the Tory cause is not necessarily hopeless
4) A boost to his own confidence and authority which will, over time, communicate itself to the voters
It won't be immediate. It may not happen. Events may intercede. But there is, just, a glimmer of hope.
He supported it at the time.
A UK stuck unwillingly inside a customs union - should that have been the EU’s intention - is not a stable status quo. First rule of negotiation is to reach an agreement that both parties can live with. Ultimately the UK could have abrogated the treaty and indeed, as I’ve argued even with Boris’s agreement, the UK retained significant leverage merely by owning many of the “facts on the ground”.
You need to take the hysterical head you are wearing off, and put your DUP head on - and with that on how does “ 30 members of the NI assembly across two parties” sound to you?
Are we going to unwind much existing regulation - unlikely.
Are we going to mirror all future EU changes - also unlikely
To increasing divergence over time
If this is such a trashing, perhaps you could name the key differences between what Boris was proposing eight months ago, and what was negotiated today.
Today is continuity Boris. It just has a different name on the tin, as Boris has gone now.
10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
Yet Johnson himself is holed up somewhere wondering if he has the capital and backing to oppose the deal.
You claimed the direct opposite. Can you not read?
The idea that May’s agreement was “forever” while Boris’s a mere stepping stone to sunlit uplands is a nonsense. If so, no abrogation would ever have been entertained.
Not because this is different to what he was negotiating.
Not because he gives a damn about the people of Northern Ireland.
Look into your heart and mind, you know I'm right.
If we are talking of supporting something at the time @CorrectHorseBattery wholly endorsed Corbyn for PM and since has had a damascine conversion to Starmer
Purgatorialists were played.
AND it cost the economy billions.
I agree with you they are not keen on returning to power sharing for other reasons.
Hopefully he and the DUP are the only opponents and then he can be slid out of parliament onto the international lecture circuit a long way from power.
The EU's refusal to implement the trusted trader scheme gave the UK legal grounds to pull the A16 trigger and that is why the negotiations started, the subsequent war in Ukraine, the energy crisis and other events which have shown we were better working together has solidified that resolve on both sides and Rishi being a more reliable partner who wouldn't brief the Telegraph the day after trashing the agreed deal all fed into the current deal on the table but it was A16 and the EU's blanket refusal to implement the agreed deal that kicked it all off.
The May withdrawal agreement had neither of those, what would have brought the EU to the negotiating table?
It's not a brake for the DUP.
Only one of these things should actually matter to anyone except the DUP.
And yes, it is a brake, just one they can't apply as a sole party because they would misuse it. It doesn't say it has to represent both communities, just two parties.
Clearly making the point that you have to have some EU law in NI to keep the border open and essentially it’s a price worth paying .