politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB takes clear leads in the GB polls but Scotland remains a p

SystemSystem Posts: 12,174
edited July 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » LAB takes clear leads in the GB polls but Scotland remains a problem

Wikipedia

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    Hello ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    Nigelb said:

    Hello ?

    Just checking if I'd been consigned to vanilla hell....
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,677
    I have a constructive solution to the second referendum problem.

    Let's hold a referendum to see if we need another referendum.

    What is terrible, is that there are worse ideas out there.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Messy.
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    edited July 2018
    Jonathan said:

    I have a constructive solution to the second referendum problem.

    Let's hold a referendum to see if we need another referendum.

    What is terrible, is that there are worse ideas out there.

    We could do it as the same time as the second referendum itself, on an if/then basis. Would save time, and confuse everyone even more.

    (is that a worser one ?)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Good afternoon, everyone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    MikeSmithson said:

    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
    And in the way that GE2017 was denied then announced, at the same time undermined their credibility when they rule something out (a second referendum, for example).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    You remind me a little of the military experts running the last Iraq war from the safety of their keyboards. It all seems very simple until you have to deal with the consequences.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    MikeSmithson said:

    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
    Agreed. And the FTPA provides an excellent excuse for their choice.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    I think the govt is more worried about making it to Friday than to GE2022
  • archer101auarcher101au Posts: 1,612
    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:



    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.

    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.
    There is no need for a hard border after Brexit, a point that has been understood by everyone. Before Varadkar started showboating, the Irish Government knew that the border would be solved by technology and were working with the UK to sort out the details. Even now he is saying if there is No Deal that ROI will not build a hard border. If this is the case, why does there need to be a border if we have CETA?

    CETA is based on mutual recognition of standards, zero tariffs and zero quotas. On this basis, why would there need to be a hard border? In fact, what customs checks would really be needed? Spot checks away from the border would easily take care of any remaining compliance issues.

    The only blindspot is that you cannot see that the NI backstop was a negotiating device from the EU that May was only too eager to walk into, because it would allow her to rule out CETA and push for BINO.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,898
    MikeSmithson said:

    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
    Boris and Davis went early :lol:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    TOPPING said:

    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.

    No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is with the assumption that not being in a customs union or whatever would mean a return to a hard border, apparently without any human will being involved since the UK, Republic and the EU are all adamant that they can't countenance a hard border.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,305
    (OT) Another 'breakthrough' battery technology (which actually looks quite promising):
    https://techxplore.com/news/2018-07-norwegian-silicon-jackpot-battery-solution.html
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    https://twitter.com/ESTheLondoner/status/1018820039141715969/photo/1

    Posted without comment!

    (although the Guardian live blog has a good section on it at 13:22)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:



    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.

    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.
    There is no need for a hard border after Brexit, a point that has been understood by everyone. Before Varadkar started showboating, the Irish Government knew that the border would be solved by technology and were working with the UK to sort out the details. Even now he is saying if there is No Deal that ROI will not build a hard border. If this is the case, why does there need to be a border if we have CETA?

    CETA is based on mutual recognition of standards, zero tariffs and zero quotas. On this basis, why would there need to be a hard border? In fact, what customs checks would really be needed? Spot checks away from the border would easily take care of any remaining compliance issues.

    The only blindspot is that you cannot see that the NI backstop was a negotiating device from the EU that May was only too eager to walk into, because it would allow her to rule out CETA and push for BINO.
    So, she laid down her four red lines as a deliberate policy to enable her to be seen as a flip flopper in 2022?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Even those poll ratings are much higher than Labour recorded during the 2017 election campaign. In the context of a Westminster election with GB polls showing Labour well placed to win , I would expect Labour to rally strongly in Scotland to poll circa 30% - mainly though not entirely at SNP expense.Will be very surprised if the SNP exceed 35% next time.
  • RoyalBlueRoyalBlue Posts: 3,223
    I think no deal is becoming more likely.

    Parliament will not vote for May’s turd of a deal. Even if May wants a referendum, 100+ Brexiteers won’t vote for it. Neither will Corbyn, as he’ll say the proper course of action should be a general election, which won’t pass the Commons either.

    No deal it is.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited July 2018
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:



    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.

    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.
    There is no need for a hard border after Brexit, a point that has been understood by everyone. Before Varadkar started showboating, the Irish Government knew that the border would be solved by technology and were working with the UK to sort out the details. Even now he is saying if there is No Deal that ROI will not build a hard border. If this is the case, why does there need to be a border if we have CETA?

    CETA is based on mutual recognition of standards, zero tariffs and zero quotas. On this basis, why would there need to be a hard border? In fact, what customs checks would really be needed? Spot checks away from the border would easily take care of any remaining compliance issues.

    The only blindspot is that you cannot see that the NI backstop was a negotiating device from the EU that May was only too eager to walk into, because it would allow her to rule out CETA and push for BINO.
    No. As I said, of all the areas where fudges might happen, the border was not one of them. May knew that.

    Good article on it here. By your side as well.

    And May caved. Because she had to. To refer to a more profound, philosophical example, it's like this bit in The Rock.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pobX0ZnXI
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,393
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    https://twitter.com/ESTheLondoner/status/1018820039141715969/photo/1

    Posted without comment!

    (although the Guardian live blog has a good section on it at 13:22)

    May's basic problem is that her style of government is nervous, defensive, and secretive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,881
    Nigelb said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    You remind me a little of the military experts running the last Iraq war from the safety of their keyboards. It all seems very simple until you have to deal with the consequences.
    He has the double protection of his keyboard and the 10,000 miles between him and the EU.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    edited July 2018
    rcs1000 said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:



    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.

    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.
    There is no need for a hard border after Brexit, a point that has been understood by everyone. Before Varadkar started showboating, the Irish Government knew that the border would be solved by technology and were working with the UK to sort out the details. Even now he is saying if there is No Deal that ROI will not build a hard border. If this is the case, why does there need to be a border if we have CETA?

    CETA is based on mutual recognition of standards, zero tariffs and zero quotas. On this basis, why would there need to be a hard border? In fact, what customs checks would really be needed? Spot checks away from the border would easily take care of any remaining compliance issues.

    The only blindspot is that you cannot see that the NI backstop was a negotiating device from the EU that May was only too eager to walk into, because it would allow her to rule out CETA and push for BINO.
    So, she laid down her four red lines as a deliberate policy to enable her to be seen as a flip flopper in 2022?
    She won't be around in 2022...

    In fact the way she's going she may not even be around at 20:22pm tonight! :D
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,393
    FPT Com Res, the poll is the same one conducted for the Mirror on 13th July.

    I don't know if they'll release voting intentions, but they look like 41% each for Conservative and Labour, judging by the internal numbers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Blue, disagree. Her proposal may not pass the Commons, at which point Remainers may seek to make Grieve's meaningful vote into the means by which to support a second referendum.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    This is a good article on The Trump Doctrine: https://on.ft.com/2zJ7T88 (NOT paywalled...)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Even Bruce Willis says Die Hard IS NOT a Christmas film.

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a861691/bruce-willis-answers-die-hard-christmas-movie/
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    TOPPING said:

    She could not not have. This is your (and others' tbf) blindspot.

    Anyone with a passing acquaintance of the history of the six Counties would appreciate that a UK PM simply could not embark upon any negotiating route which could countenance or involve, if the negotiations took that turn, a return to a hard border or indeed any border infrastructure in NI.

    No one disagrees with that. The disagreement is with the assumption that not being in a customs union or whatever would mean a return to a hard border, apparently without any human will being involved since the UK, Republic and the EU are all adamant that they can't countenance a hard border.
    It's bizarre, as we have noted several times previously. But, to channel Bill Shankly, the shit got real and the backstop was a reflection of that. The fact that the EU, the UK, the RoI all don't want a border, does not mean that May could have taken the chance that events would have lead to one one way or another.

    As I posted in response to our man in Oz Archer, this is a good article on it. By Brexit Central of all people.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Eagles, then Bruce Willis is wrong.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    MikeSmithson said:

    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
    Agreed.

    Of course, she might be forced into it if there's a full-on split and/or the DUP withdraw support. But other than that, a new PM will seek to stay until 2022. The argument 'we've had enough elections for now; let's focus on the day job' will have some sympathy.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,537
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    https://twitter.com/ESTheLondoner/status/1018820039141715969/photo/1

    Posted without comment!

    (although the Guardian live blog has a good section on it at 13:22)

    Is it intended as a criticism, as the Guardian and ES seem to assume? Seems quite reasonable to me, as a non-Tory.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,414
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Even Bruce Willis says Die Hard IS NOT a Christmas film.

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a861691/bruce-willis-answers-die-hard-christmas-movie/

    Did he opine anything on CETA, the NI backstop, or a Second Referndum? He could be the charismatic leader Nadine is looking for.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Eagles, then Bruce Willis is wrong.

    Who do I listen to? The star of the film or someone so out of tune with the British public?
  • El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 4,239
    Assuming May accepts the ERG amendments, do we know which way the pro-EU Conservatives will vote on them? Will she (and by proxy JRM) still be defeated by a Soubry-Labour alliance?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    RoyalBlue said:

    I think no deal is becoming more likely.

    Parliament will not vote for May’s turd of a deal. Even if May wants a referendum, 100+ Brexiteers won’t vote for it. Neither will Corbyn, as he’ll say the proper course of action should be a general election, which won’t pass the Commons either.

    No deal it is.

    I've nearly finished my No Deal script...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    I too want a no deal Brexit.

    It will do to Leavers what the Winter of Discontent did to Labour.

    No food, meds, trade, and planes ensures the UK rejoining.

    Bring it on.

    Short term pain for long term gain.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1018836963317690368?s=21
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    NickPalmer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    https://twitter.com/ESTheLondoner/status/1018820039141715969/photo/1

    Posted without comment!

    (although the Guardian live blog has a good section on it at 13:22)

    Is it intended as a criticism, as the Guardian and ES seem to assume? Seems quite reasonable to me, as a non-Tory.
    Ms Jenkyns would be well advised to spend more time with her logic.

    Although, in her own way, she hasn't half nailed the problem with British politics at the moment: too many people with a passion for the unworkable.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,393
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I too want a no deal Brexit.

    It will do to Leavers what the Winter of Discontent did to Labour.

    No food, meds, trade, and planes ensures the UK rejoining.

    Bring it on.

    Short term pain for long term gain.

    That may not happen. In which case, you'll just finish up with something you don't want.

    It's a good idea not to gamble, unless you can tolerate losing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    edited July 2018
    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    Ah, only the EU are allowed to use NI as leverage?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Eagles, Team America: World Police teaches us the peril of taking actors' views too seriously.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    You remind me a little of the military experts running the last Iraq war from the safety of their keyboards. It all seems very simple until you have to deal with the consequences.

    He has the double protection of his keyboard and the 10,000 miles between him and the EU.
    He is a proper Leaver - he left and went about as far away as you can get without interplanetary travel.

    We seem to have quite a few Leavers who have left. I, as a Remainer, am of course, still in the UK
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Sean_F said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I too want a no deal Brexit.

    It will do to Leavers what the Winter of Discontent did to Labour.

    No food, meds, trade, and planes ensures the UK rejoining.

    Bring it on.

    Short term pain for long term gain.

    That may not happen. In which case, you'll just finish up with something you don't want.

    It's a good idea not to gamble, unless you can tolerate losing.
    It is all good.

    No deal Brexit means lots of austerity then.

    I can live with that.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Blue, disagree. Her proposal may not pass the Commons, at which point Remainers may seek to make Grieve's meaningful vote into the means by which to support a second referendum.

    But how does that happen in practice? It took over a year to pass the primary and secondary legislation for EURef1. Parliament can't just say 'let's have a vote' and it happens.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    https://twitter.com/simonjhix/status/1018813551752941568
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 14,313
    As I mentioned earlier, I don't really believe in referenda, though now the genie is well and truly out of sewer, here is a referendum prediction from my political crystal ball. In approximately 2038 there will be another referendum on the EU.

    The binary question will be something like: Do you agree for the government to enter negotiations for full membership of the European Union? Yes/No?

    By this point, without hindrance from the UK for the last 20 years the EU will be a fully fledged Federal state; armed forces, single currency, single diplomatic service and civil service and capital then in Paris or Berlin. Acceptance of all of this (no cherry picking) will be required.

    Result 52% Yes, 48% No. What fun!!!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Wow

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018852996623585280?s=21
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Beverley_C said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    You remind me a little of the military experts running the last Iraq war from the safety of their keyboards. It all seems very simple until you have to deal with the consequences.

    He has the double protection of his keyboard and the 10,000 miles between him and the EU.
    He is a proper Leaver - he left and went about as far away as you can get without interplanetary travel.

    We seem to have quite a few Leavers who have left. I, as a Remainer, am of course, still in the UK
    Weren’t you pondering leaving at one point, or do I have you confused with another poster?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    MikeSmithson said:

    Nigelb said:

    I don’t buy the argument that a new CON leader would press the general election button

    No more likely than the old one will, I think.

    I would say that the GE2017 experience has put a blight on Tory leaders going early for decades
    "This time is different"

    Hubris down the ages.

    Though of course it does depend on i) how stupid and ii) how possessed of self-belief May's successor is......so I wouldn't rule it out entirely.....
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,016
    edited July 2018
    Straight from the horse's...er...orifice.

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018852996623585280
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Herdson, Morris Dancer's Possible Path to Another Referendum:
    MPs decided May's crock of shit deal stinks
    They vote it down
    Brexiteers rejoice
    Remain majority in Commons do not
    Blue and red Remainers decide the British people entitled to a say as 'no deal' wasn't part of the official Leave campaign
    Voting rushed through
    Article 50 suspended to permit six months(ish) for campaign
    Referendum occurs
    At least half the country is pissed off with the result
    Political and/or economic turmoil ensues
    Losing side blames victors for everything that goes wrong over the next 30 years
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    NickPalmer said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    https://twitter.com/ESTheLondoner/status/1018820039141715969/photo/1

    Posted without comment!

    (although the Guardian live blog has a good section on it at 13:22)

    Is it intended as a criticism, as the Guardian and ES seem to assume? Seems quite reasonable to me, as a non-Tory.
    I suspect the public would quite happily take 'Workable' over 'Passionate Brexit' or 'Passionate Remain' any day of the week....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    justin124 said:

    Even those poll ratings are much higher than Labour recorded during the 2017 election campaign. In the context of a Westminster election with GB polls showing Labour well placed to win , I would expect Labour to rally strongly in Scotland to poll circa 30% - mainly though not entirely at SNP expense.Will be very surprised if the SNP exceed 35% next time.

    Keep chanting that mantra.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1018836963317690368?s=21

    They must be the two Michael Gove had in mind.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Straight from the horse's...er...orifice.

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018852996623585280

    Gove has confessed that he is guilty as charged. Surely he ought now to resign his Parliamentary seat.....
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,293
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Wow

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018852996623585280?s=21

    Gove's having Regrexit.

    Too late now sunshine...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    RobD said:

    Beverley_C said:

    IanB2 said:

    Nigelb said:

    You remind me a little of the military experts running the last Iraq war from the safety of their keyboards. It all seems very simple until you have to deal with the consequences.

    He has the double protection of his keyboard and the 10,000 miles between him and the EU.
    He is a proper Leaver - he left and went about as far away as you can get without interplanetary travel.

    We seem to have quite a few Leavers who have left. I, as a Remainer, am of course, still in the UK
    Weren’t you pondering leaving at one point, or do I have you confused with another poster?
    The legend was that I was leaving. The truth was that I was staying, but some of my assets left and went abroad. However the legend is now an established PB-Fact and therefore I must have left even though I have not, I think.... err....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Countess of Airlie trumps Trump:

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/queen-s-ladyinwaiting-plays-donald-trump-at-his-own-game-with-power-handshake-a3888311.html
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Surely not?

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018858803159281666
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    PClipp said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Straight from the horse's...er...orifice.

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018852996623585280

    Gove has confessed that he is guilty as charged. Surely he ought now to resign his Parliamentary seat.....
    Suggest you read the article - the headline is a jump from the comments.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    CarlottaVance said:

    Surely not?

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018858803159281666

    Sláinte also argued that if it was banned from including comments from acquaintances of Salmond on the show then it would exclude “a very substantial section of the population” from having the right to have their views broadcast.

    Titters...
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    "The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”"

    GUARDIAN : "GOVE DISAVOWS EVERYTHING EVER "
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    david_herdson said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Blue, disagree. Her proposal may not pass the Commons, at which point Remainers may seek to make Grieve's meaningful vote into the means by which to support a second referendum.

    But how does that happen in practice? It took over a year to pass the primary and secondary legislation for EURef1. Parliament can't just say 'let's have a vote' and it happens.
    The Greeks made it happen in about three weeks. I would hope we're able to match that.

    You know, they could just do a Facebook poll...
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    What is the point of saying "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" if it only refers to its own document, where everything has, by definition, already been agreed. The only sensible interpretation is that it must refer to a process beyond the interim agreement.

    i do find it odd that you say that the UK is using (or could use) NI as leverage when NI *is part of the UK*. It's the EU which is trying to use NI as leverage.

    In any case, how is the agreement enforced if talks break down to such an extent that there is no deal?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,701
    Am shocked.

    https://twitter.com/khanur1983/status/1018458076297486337?s=21
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,393
    rcs1000 said:

    david_herdson said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Blue, disagree. Her proposal may not pass the Commons, at which point Remainers may seek to make Grieve's meaningful vote into the means by which to support a second referendum.

    But how does that happen in practice? It took over a year to pass the primary and secondary legislation for EURef1. Parliament can't just say 'let's have a vote' and it happens.
    The Greeks made it happen in about three weeks. I would hope we're able to match that.

    You know, they could just do a Facebook poll...
    Yes, I think a Referendum could be arranged swiftly, if the Commons agreed.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Private Pike has a new toy:

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generation-fighter-jet-called-tempest/
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,249
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Herdson, Morris Dancer's Possible Path to Another Referendum:
    MPs decided May's crock of shit deal stinks
    They vote it down
    Brexiteers rejoice
    Remain majority in Commons do not
    Blue and red Remainers decide the British people entitled to a say as 'no deal' wasn't part of the official Leave campaign
    Voting rushed through
    Article 50 suspended to permit six months(ish) for campaign
    Referendum occurs
    At least half the country is pissed off with the result
    Political and/or economic turmoil ensues
    Losing side blames victors for everything that goes wrong over the next 30 years

    I think that's nailed on.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Am shocked.

    twitter.com/khanur1983/status/1018458076297486337?s=21

    That’s pretty disgusting. Was she transporting Robinson to prison in a double decker bus or something?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,044
    CarlottaVance said:

    Surely not?

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018858803159281666

    Surely to mislead the audience requires there to be an audience?
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    RobD said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Surely not?

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018858803159281666

    Sláinte also argued that if it was banned from including comments from acquaintances of Salmond on the show then it would exclude “a very substantial section of the population” from having the right to have their views broadcast.

    Titters...
    As far as I can tell Sláinte Media is Salmond, his accountant and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

    Why is Salmond too feeble to put his own name to the statement?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. 1000, it's mildly annoying that so many of my predictions about EU stuff is either proving true or remains plausible, yet my F1 record this season has been less than impressive.

    Speaking of which, just had another look and the markets still aren't up.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Eagles, a less than lovely picture. *sighs*

    Remains credible that we'll see the far right rise. Must hope it doesn't happen but we should be aware of the possibility.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,393
    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    What is the point of saying "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" if it only refers to its own document, where everything has, by definition, already been agreed. The only sensible interpretation is that it must refer to a process beyond the interim agreement.

    i do find it odd that you say that the UK is using (or could use) NI as leverage when NI *is part of the UK*. It's the EU which is trying to use NI as leverage.

    In any case, how is the agreement enforced if talks break down to such an extent that there is no deal?
    Well, you could sue at the Court of Settlements at the Hague. But even then, I don't know what enforcement mechanism there could be to make the government put a border in the Irish Sea if it didn't want to.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    What is the point of saying "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" if it only refers to its own document, where everything has, by definition, already been agreed. The only sensible interpretation is that it must refer to a process beyond the interim agreement.

    i do find it odd that you say that the UK is using (or could use) NI as leverage when NI *is part of the UK*. It's the EU which is trying to use NI as leverage.

    In any case, how is the agreement enforced if talks break down to such an extent that there is no deal?
    I didn't talk about an interim agreement but about the withdrawal agreement - i.e. the legal text that will formalise our exit from the EU. At that point the future relationship will not be finalised, so the backstop will serve a very necessary purpose.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,016
    TGOHF said:

    "The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”"

    GUARDIAN : "GOVE DISAVOWS EVERYTHING EVER "

    I wonder why you didn't reproduce what Gove was replying to?

    'The Conservative minister was asked by Tom Baldwin, a former communications director for Ed Miliband, in his book Ctrl Alt Delete whether he had been happy making appeals to “some very low sentiments” in the context of concerns over Turkish immigration. The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”'
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    JonnyJimmy said:

    RobD said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Surely not?

    https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1018858803159281666

    Sláinte also argued that if it was banned from including comments from acquaintances of Salmond on the show then it would exclude “a very substantial section of the population” from having the right to have their views broadcast.

    Titters...
    As far as I can tell Sláinte Media is Salmond, his accountant and Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh.

    Why is Salmond too feeble to put his own name to the statement?
    "His company’s sole director is Mr Salmond’s accountant, John Cairns, a partner at French Duncan who specialises in “tax efficient investments”, according to his biography."

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14845547.Salmond_publishing_firm_has_almost___100_000_cash/
    This link about a different company, but Sláinte Media has the same sole director.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    Theuniondivvie said:

    "There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”'

    It's called a guilty conscience.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,754
    edited July 2018
    @faisalislam - Govt accepts all 4 Rees Mogg amendments to Customs Bill - on no NI customs border, no fast track capacity to form customs union, leaving EU VAT regime, limiting capacity to collect tariff revenue for EU without reciprocity [ie what was in Facilitated customs agreement”...
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Am shocked.

    https://twitter.com/khanur1983/status/1018458076297486337?s=21

    https://twitter.com/Jashapara/status/1018226933220462594

    https://twitter.com/sharonwit/status/1018258000816103425

    'some very fine people on both sides'
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TGOHF said:

    "The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”"

    GUARDIAN : "GOVE DISAVOWS EVERYTHING EVER "

    I wonder why you didn't reproduce what Gove was replying to?

    'The Conservative minister was asked by Tom Baldwin, a former communications director for Ed Miliband, in his book Ctrl Alt Delete whether he had been happy making appeals to “some very low sentiments” in the context of concerns over Turkish immigration. The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”'
    Wasn’t that implied by the tweet? How could we forget about the Turkish immigration scare. We hear about it on here on an almost daily basis :p
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    For those exulting/bemoaning the amendments the government has accepted:

    https://twitter.com/ThimontJack/status/1018829843239243776
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,221
    Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline Max Factor International.

    https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1018862265687334912
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Theuniondivvie said:

    TGOHF said:

    "The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”"

    GUARDIAN : "GOVE DISAVOWS EVERYTHING EVER "

    I wonder why you didn't reproduce what Gove was replying to?

    'The Conservative minister was asked by Tom Baldwin, a former communications director for Ed Miliband, in his book Ctrl Alt Delete whether he had been happy making appeals to “some very low sentiments” in the context of concerns over Turkish immigration. The minister replied: “I know what you mean, yes. If it had been left entirely to me the leave campaign would have a slightly different feel.

    “I would have to go back and look at everything I said and think whether that was the right response at the right time. There is a sense at the back of my mind that we didn’t get everything absolutely right. It’s a difficult one.”'
    so nothing about Turkey in "quotes"....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    williamglenn said:

    @faisalislam - Govt accepts all 4 Rees Mogg amendments to Customs Bill - on no NI customs border, no fast track capacity to form customs union, leaving EU VAT regime, limiting capacity to collect tariff revenue for EU without reciprocity [ie what was in Facilitated customs agreement”...

    Good. Only the most rabid remainer would vote for a new border down the Irish sea.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    CarlottaVance said:

    Private Pike has a new toy:

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generation-fighter-jet-called-tempest/

    Fucking LOL. They"ve taken the BAE Replica mock up out from behind the skip where they left it in 1998, turned it the right way up and repainted it. This reminds me of the way the Iranian government produces crude facsimiles of aircraft that will never exist for the titillation of the gullible.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    RoyalBlue said:

    I think no deal is becoming more likely.

    Parliament will not vote for May’s turd of a deal. Even if May wants a referendum, 100+ Brexiteers won’t vote for it. Neither will Corbyn, as he’ll say the proper course of action should be a general election, which won’t pass the Commons either.

    No deal it is.

    For my benefit, could you explain what you think the consequences of this, on its face, quite blithe “no deal it is” are?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,815
    Mr. Flashman (deceased), not so. Corbyn would love to divide Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    What is the point of saying "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" if it only refers to its own document, where everything has, by definition, already been agreed. The only sensible interpretation is that it must refer to a process beyond the interim agreement.

    i do find it odd that you say that the UK is using (or could use) NI as leverage when NI *is part of the UK*. It's the EU which is trying to use NI as leverage.

    In any case, how is the agreement enforced if talks break down to such an extent that there is no deal?
    I didn't talk about an interim agreement but about the withdrawal agreement - i.e. the legal text that will formalise our exit from the EU. At that point the future relationship will not be finalised, so the backstop will serve a very necessary purpose.
    If the Amendments the ERG have put forward are incorporated as is being reported today, and the Bill then passes into law, the backstop will be illegal so HMG will not be able to implement that aspect of it anyway.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,221
    I think May suffers from the same affliction as Trump - she agrees with the last person she talks to then changes the record when she meets the next.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,653
    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    williamglenn said:

    david_herdson said:

    The backstop isn't really. It's conditional on nothing being agreed until everything is agreed - which of course means that it's either not enforceable (because not everything has been agreed, so neither has the backstop), or it's not needed (because everything has been agreed so fallback positions are unnecessary).

    That's wrong. The "everything" just means everything in the withdrawal agreement, but the political declaration on the future relationship is non-binding. The backstop is there so that if the UK decides to walk away later, it can't create a situation where border in Ireland would be required, and in general can't use Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage.
    What is the point of saying "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" if it only refers to its own document, where everything has, by definition, already been agreed. The only sensible interpretation is that it must refer to a process beyond the interim agreement.

    i do find it odd that you say that the UK is using (or could use) NI as leverage when NI *is part of the UK*. It's the EU which is trying to use NI as leverage.

    In any case, how is the agreement enforced if talks break down to such an extent that there is no deal?
    I didn't talk about an interim agreement but about the withdrawal agreement - i.e. the legal text that will formalise our exit from the EU. At that point the future relationship will not be finalised, so the backstop will serve a very necessary purpose.
    If the Amendments the ERG have put forward are incorporated as is being reported today, and the Bill then passes into law, the backstop will be illegal so HMG will not be able to implement that aspect of it anyway.

    So we crash out. The Tories will own the consequences of that fully. If Jeremy Corbyn could have sat down and written out exactly what he wanted, this would have been it.

    I am so, so glad we sold our business when we did. It's going to get very ugly in the UK over the next few years.

  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    TOPPING said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    archer101au said:



    Good of you to completely ignore the real solution, the solution that actually fulfils the referendum result - CETA Plus.

    Not an option on the table right now. Not an option that could be created in the 2 years that were available had the Tories tried.

    Yeah. Clearly not on the table:

    https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/donald-tusk-post-brexit-deal-will-be-similar-to-ceta/
    Not on the table right now - we can't get such a thing built in a few weeks to be ratified by the 27 governments.

    Thats the whole point. You can howl at the moon in Oz all you like, here in the UK we need something that is practical and implementable at short notice and that leaves EEA.

    I do agree with you that CETA could have been an option - had we set out with that as the aim, prepped our asks and THEN trigger A50 so that our hired and prepped negotiation team were ready to engage. But we didn't. So now we can't.
    The only thing that stopped CETA is May's idiotic NI backstop pledge.
    Should really rule out you being able to comment on UK politics.

    How long have you been in Oz? Did you move prior to 1998? 1969? 1937? 1922? 1916? 1891? 1014?
    Do you have an argument? Clearly not.
    You are right. I don't have an argument. I have a statement of the bleedin' obvious: no British PM can in any sense accept, or be party to an agreement that there could be a border on the island of Ireland.
    Then May should simply not have agreed to the NI backstop. Problem solved.
    Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed - and everything has not been agreed so nothing is agreed.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,016
    edited July 2018
    Dura_Ace said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Private Pike has a new toy:

    https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-unveils-new-next-generation-fighter-jet-called-tempest/

    Fucking LOL. They"ve taken the BAE Replica mock up out from behind the skip where they left it in 1998, turned it the right way up and repainted it. This reminds me of the way the Iranian government produces crude facsimiles of aircraft that will never exist for the titillation of the gullible.
    Is it a conscious policy to name fighters after RAF fighters from WWII? If not, it's a marvellously accidental tap into the Brexit zeitgeist.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    rcs1000 said:

    david_herdson said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Blue, disagree. Her proposal may not pass the Commons, at which point Remainers may seek to make Grieve's meaningful vote into the means by which to support a second referendum.

    But how does that happen in practice? It took over a year to pass the primary and secondary legislation for EURef1. Parliament can't just say 'let's have a vote' and it happens.
    The Greeks made it happen in about three weeks. I would hope we're able to match that.

    You know, they could just do a Facebook poll...
    If there was agreement on all sides that there needed to be a referendum, and on what the question was, yes, it could probably be done quickly. But there won't be, which means you'd almost certainly have to have the Electoral Commission register campaigns and so on, in which case the absolute minimum time it could be run through from the Bill receiving Royal Assent through to polling day would be about two months - and that'd be after a difficult time in parliament.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Huffpo on who could be next to resign among the Tories:

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-resignations-pps-theresa-may_uk_5b4c8401e4b0e7c958fd42bf
This discussion has been closed.