1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It's in the Chequers statement:
Taken together, we noted that such a relationship would see the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship: preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK; honouring the letter and the spirit of the Belfast Agreement; and ensuring that the operational legal text the UK will nonetheless agree on the ‘backstop’ solution as part of the Withdrawal Agreement would not need to be brought into effect. In this context, we also noted that this proposal should allow both parties to resolve the remaining Withdrawal Agreement issues, including the ‘backstop’.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.
Ah yes, but aren’t they still negotiating it? Of course they will sign a withdrawal agreement.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
Agree to abackstop, not necessarily the one that is currently on offer I suspect.
I just struggle to see how the government can sign up to a deal which splits the UK, even if it says it won't be needed. The backstop still needs work.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
No it says they’ll sign the backstop. The idea is that it will never come into effect because the future relationship will supersede it, but that won’t be guaranteed until after we leave.
Ah yes, but aren’t they still negotiating it? Of course they will sign a withdrawal agreement.
They’re only finalising the definition of which single market rules need full alignment. The UK’s alternative proposal of a UK-wide backstop was comprehensively rejected and the UK is no longer proposing a different idea.
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
How’d you make the jump from the Chequers statement to 3)?
It says so in the statement.
That they’d agree to a border in the Irish Sea? Must have missed that.
Agree to abackstop, not necessarily the one that is currently on offer I suspect.
I just struggle to see how the government can sign up to a deal which splits the UK, even if it says it won't be needed. The backstop still needs work.
If England can't beat this Croatia they should pack in playing football entirely. England are as good as in the final.
Croatia have at least 3 players who could walk into and improve the England team, in Modric’s case significantly so. Some of their other players are a lot more ordinary but this will not be a walk in the park.
What happened the last time England played three at the back against Croatia?
Is that the match when England's Brave John Terry was injured to play for England yet was fine to play for Chelsea on Saturday?
No, it was the game where McClaren thought it was a good idea to play a back three - a formation not used by any of the Premier League teams at the time. I have a feeling that Carragher was on the left of the three and Gary Neville has used it as an example of what happens when you play someone in that position who isn't very comfortable on the ball.
I guess that will be the real test. If she does, the EU might believe her that this is the best the UK will offer, but if not, then they'll be going for full FOM, CJEU oversight etc.
England can beat this Croatia side. They've been very poor in both of their knock out matches. If this was a qualifier we'd back England to win and the team look like they are playing without pressure.
Still very nervous though, there's always the random factor but I do think we have enough in the tank to win on Wednesday and get to the final, and that's anyone's game.
Well, the horse racing results only helped a little as I did my proverbials on England this afternoon. I really didn't think we would beat Sweden and I thought 7/2 the Swedes with Paddy a huge price and went in strong.
I was wrong - I'm not sure it was a classic performance from England and Pickford performed heroics at valuable moments to keep the Swedes out but in truth Sweden were poor and the better side won on the day.
In the 90 minute market Paddy have Croatia at 12/5 and England at 13/10 with 21/10 the draw which I think a knocking price as I think it will be a late evening on Wednesday.
I think the France - Belgium semi-final is too close to call.
At first I thought TMay had managed to find the crap yet miracle deal everyone would grudgingly accept, as being tolerably better than even worse alternatives.
Now I have severe doubts. The EU *should* say Yes immediately (it's great for them) yet I can see them overplaying their hand, asking for more, and crashing it.
And lots and lots of Tory activists and members are going to hate it. And they will tell their MPs.
Chance of No Deal must now be near 50%?
I think you are spot on, it is up to the EU now to see sense
Whether they see sense or just accept some more pragmatism to make it work somehow despite being unacceptable in its current form, it is down to them - May is no doubt telling the EU this is as good as it gets from her, that she cannot do better, and I don't think they believe that to be the case, but she is probably not bluffing about that. Further concessions may not be possible even if May would be prepared to do that.
Agreed it is in the EU's court now but we must be ready to prepare for No Deal.
Personally I think the EU will agree enough has been done for an 18 month transition deal but not for a FTA, with further work on the latter needed until Brexit and through the transition period
Comments
1. It is a conjurer's sleight of hand. Theresa May gets people to focus on the future relationship while the critical manoeuvre is the Withdrawal Agreement. The Withdrawal Agreement is a hard treaty arrangement. If we don't follow through we can be hauled in front the Court of Settlements in the Hague, whereas the "Political Declaration on the Future Relationship Framework" that the Chequers statement links to is every bit as vague as it sounds.
2. The Future Relationship Framework declaration can therefore be as fudged as we like. It's never going to be the treaty but negotiators might refer to it in post-Brexit negotiations if they feel like it.
3. Chequers tells us the government will sign the Northern Ireland backstop so the WA goes ahead. The government will hope the FRF will give cover and credibility to their claim the NI backstop will never be used.
4. The EU should welcome Chequers in its normal bland Eurospeak as a basis of of a FRF subject to blahblah if it moves the WA forward, which is what really matters. EU people are usually tactful when they are getting their way but Barnier is a bit of a loose cannon and the sheer number of parties involved increases the possibility of a row blowing up.
5. Brexiteers have weakened their position by not devising a credible alternative plan for Brexit that people can rally around. As a Remoaner I can see why they didn't. Nevertheless it's a problem for them.
6. No-one is thinking strategically: neither the Govt, the EU nor Brexiteers. The focus is entirely on staggering through to March 29 next year.
7. Theresa May is stretching the truth on her red lines. So "The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook" actually means the UK doing whatever is in the EU rulebook. The CJEU wouldn't rule on UK cases because it never has done, even when the UK was a member - a common misconception.
"Instructing Solicitors ask that you prepare a short memo, briefly opposing everything in the Chequers note"?
It just seems so bizarre to me, as a task. No real depth of analysis, no real action points, no balanced judgments.
He took one for Liverpool and it ended up in orbit.
Taken together, we noted that such a relationship would see the UK and the EU meet their commitments to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship: preserving the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK; honouring the letter and the spirit of the Belfast Agreement; and ensuring that the operational legal text the UK will nonetheless agree on the ‘backstop’ solution as part of the Withdrawal Agreement would not need to be brought into effect. In this context, we also noted that this proposal should allow both parties to resolve the remaining Withdrawal Agreement issues, including the ‘backstop’.
They won't have split loyalties on Wednesday.
I just struggle to see how the government can sign up to a deal which splits the UK, even if it says it won't be needed. The backstop still needs work.
So can we now ask him how he is getting on with his turd polishing?
I guess that will be the real test. If she does, the EU might believe her that this is the best the UK will offer, but if not, then they'll be going for full FOM, CJEU oversight etc.
And they'll get it.
Still very nervous though, there's always the random factor but I do think we have enough in the tank to win on Wednesday and get to the final, and that's anyone's game.
You can, however, roll it in glitter...
I understand viagra helps you get past a semi.
Well, the horse racing results only helped a little as I did my proverbials on England this afternoon. I really didn't think we would beat Sweden and I thought 7/2 the Swedes with Paddy a huge price and went in strong.
I was wrong - I'm not sure it was a classic performance from England and Pickford performed heroics at valuable moments to keep the Swedes out but in truth Sweden were poor and the better side won on the day.
In the 90 minute market Paddy have Croatia at 12/5 and England at 13/10 with 21/10 the draw which I think a knocking price as I think it will be a late evening on Wednesday.
I think the France - Belgium semi-final is too close to call.
https://twitter.com/martinselmayr/status/1015700068433825794?s=21
Personally I think the EU will agree enough has been done for an 18 month transition deal but not for a FTA, with further work on the latter needed until Brexit and through the transition period
NEW THREAD
A good day to bury bad news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/07/bbc-stars-say-broadcaster-humiliating-plans-publish-salaries/
Ron Liddle has indicated his acceptance to Pres.Putin.
(it's all in your Spectator subscription.)