Mr. Glenn, subsidiary/devolved political bodies don't get to unilaterally declare independence or decide which country's laws and regulations they wish to apply.
Otherwise you'd have businesses in the UK paying Irish corporation tax, individuals choosing to adopt the American First Amendment for free speech (and maybe the Second Amendment too).
If the Northern Irish people choose to leave the UK, that would have to be respected. But it is not for a temporary crop of politicians to unilaterally make such a decision without a democratic mandate via a referendum.
Mr. D, indeed.
They voted in a referendum for the Good Friday Agreement on both sides of the border, and people in Northern Ireland voted Remain. It is outrageous to take Northern Ireland out of the single market and customs union against its will.
Mr. Glenn, subsidiary/devolved political bodies don't get to unilaterally declare independence or decide which country's laws and regulations they wish to apply.
Otherwise you'd have businesses in the UK paying Irish corporation tax, individuals choosing to adopt the American First Amendment for free speech (and maybe the Second Amendment too).
If the Northern Irish people choose to leave the UK, that would have to be respected. But it is not for a temporary crop of politicians to unilaterally make such a decision without a democratic mandate via a referendum.
Mr. D, indeed.
They voted in a referendum for the Good Friday Agreement on both sides of the border, and people in Northern Ireland voted Remain. It is outrageous to take Northern Ireland out of the single market and customs union against its will.
No worse than taking Brighton or Glasgow out of such arrangements.
It is the first of many sadly. We have humiliated ourselves before the world on a platform of lies and deceptions and hid its real name, nationalism. Those that are responsible will have to be called to account for their treachery, if not now, then later. Boris Johnson et al should not be rewarded, but condemned to a political wilderness to contemplate the mess that they have unnecessarily dragged us into.
Mr. Glenn, devolved bodies don't determine foreign policy or nationwide regulation.
I'm amused you think it's outrageous to oppose the EU's attempt to annex British territory. Why do you think a customs union of 27 nation-states should be sacrosanct, to the extent of imposing it on part of a nation seeking to leave and bifurcating that nation's territory?
It's more of an affront than if the British insisted the Irish joined us in a customs union, because that would, at least, preserve the territorial integrity of the Irish Republic. [I don't support such a deal, I mention it as a counterpoint to the even more ludicrous proposition by the EU, which has your support].
At our EU27 working lunch today we had a good discussion on Brexit, which once again reconfirmed our full unity. Let me highlight three points.
First, we reconfirmed that there will be no Withdrawal Agreement without a solid, operational and legally binding Irish backstop. And we continue to fully support Michel Barnier in his efforts to find such a model.
Second, we agreed to have a joint political declaration that provides as much clarity as possible on the future relations. Everybody shared the view that while there are positive elements in the Chequers proposal, the suggested framework for economic cooperation will not work. Not least because it risks undermining the Single Market.
Third, we also discussed the timetable for further negotiations. The moment of truth for Brexit negotiations will be the October European Council. In October we expect maximum progress and results in the Brexit talks. Then we will decide whether conditions are there to call an extraordinary summit in November to finalise and formalise the deal.
It is the first of many sadly. We have humiliated ourselves before the world on a platform of lies and deceptions and hid its real name, nationalism. Those that are responsible will have to be called to account for their treachery, if not now, then later. Boris Johnson et al should not be rewarded, but condemned to a political wilderness to contemplate the mess that they have unnecessarily dragged us into.
Most of the world is quite indifferent whether we are EU members or not.
Mr. Glenn, devolved bodies don't determine foreign policy or nationwide regulation.
I'm amused you think it's outrageous to oppose the EU's attempt to annex British territory. Why do you think a customs union of 27 nation-states should be sacrosanct, to the extent of imposing it on part of a nation seeking to leave and bifurcating that nation's territory?
It's more of an affront than if the British insisted the Irish joined us in a customs union, because that would, at least, preserve the territorial integrity of the Irish Republic. [I don't support such a deal, I mention it as a counterpoint to the even more ludicrous proposition by the EU, which has your support].
Mr. Glenn, devolved bodies don't determine foreign policy or nationwide regulation.
I'm amused you think it's outrageous to oppose the EU's attempt to annex British territory. Why do you think a customs union of 27 nation-states should be sacrosanct, to the extent of imposing it on part of a nation seeking to leave and bifurcating that nation's territory?
It's more of an affront than if the British insisted the Irish joined us in a customs union, because that would, at least, preserve the territorial integrity of the Irish Republic. [I don't support such a deal, I mention it as a counterpoint to the even more ludicrous proposition by the EU, which has your support].
Mr Dancer, the reason devolved bodies do not determine foreign policy or nationwide regulation is because they are not sovereign, though those on the Leave side lied and lied again about sovereignty to the electorate. The EU is not attempting to "annex" British territory. This is overly emotive language that I do not normally associate with your posts.
The EU negotiators are simply trying to find a solution that is acceptable to the Republic of Ireland by giving NI special status. The RoI will continue to be their priority as they are a member and we have gone into confrontation mode as we wish to leave the club. It is pretty simple really. Making the EU a bogeyman does not enlighten our understanding of the situation
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
It is the first of many sadly. We have humiliated ourselves before the world on a platform of lies and deceptions and hid its real name, nationalism. Those that are responsible will have to be called to account for their treachery, if not now, then later. Boris Johnson et al should not be rewarded, but condemned to a political wilderness to contemplate the mess that they have unnecessarily dragged us into.
Most of the world is quite indifferent whether we are EU members or not.
They are indeed, but many will be pleased, and many alarmed by our new found status as the Village Idiot of Europe
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
Because the outcome of such a vote would still leave the losing side unhappy.
Mr. Foremain, the EU is seeking to control Northern Ireland's customs, despite Northern Ireland being British sovereign territory and the UK (perhaps) leaving the EU. How would you prefer to describe that?
Giving NI special status sounds nice. Maybe we should give the Republic of Ireland special status and dictate their customs policy?
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
That would be fine with me but I have no idea how we get there, how long it would take, and how would it be worded and it would need a decisive result.
The one thing I can say I do not envy TM in all of this
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
In that case it has to be 'No Deal'. The mandate is for 'Brexit' - not the conditions attached to it.
She's been very clear - end freedom of movement (eliminates Norway option), maintain territorial integrity of UK (eliminates Canada option because of Belfast Agreement) and no second vote. Any second referendum will be over her (metaphorical) dead body. All the more reason for the Brexiteers to keep her in place.
Mr. Foremain, the EU is seeking to control Northern Ireland's customs, despite Northern Ireland being British sovereign territory and the UK (perhaps) leaving the EU. How would you prefer to describe that?
Giving NI special status sounds nice. Maybe we should give the Republic of Ireland special status and dictate their customs policy?
A frictionless border is a red line from the UK. It's childish to insist this doesn't imply a customs and regulatory union. If you simultaneously insist on leaving the customs and regulatory union, you need to decide where the actual border will be, and the only logical and pragmatic place for it is in the sea.
Do you support the Downing Street declaration that said Britain has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland and effectively relinquished perpetual sovereignty?
May can (but probably wont) come out of this as: "we tried, we wanted to maintain close relationships, but it is an unacceptable for the European Union to try and annexe part of the United Kingdom. An agreement on a deep and workable trade relationship seems to be unacceptable to the European Union. We will be leaving the EU on March 31st next year. If we fail to reach agreement on a withdrawal deal, I cannot pretend it wont be difficult. The EU would have inflicted maximum damage on the British economy and done so to punish us for leaving. We will never forget."
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
That would be fine with me but I have no idea how we get there, how long it would take, and how would it be worded and it would need a decisive result.
The one thing I can say I do not envy TM in all of this
She's got a hospital pass for sure. But he was standing by the touchline, shouting for the ball....
Mr. Foremain, the EU is seeking to control Northern Ireland's customs, despite Northern Ireland being British sovereign territory and the UK (perhaps) leaving the EU. How would you prefer to describe that?
Giving NI special status sounds nice. Maybe we should give the Republic of Ireland special status and dictate their customs policy?
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Mr. Glenn, I don't recall that declaration being made, to be honest.
I also think it's 100% clear I don't support the EU's customs union being imposed on part of a nation that voted to leave, and placing a customs barrier within a nation state.
Mr. Foremain, decades of collusion by the political class with the EU, to the extent of literally promising a referendum and then reneging upon it after the election, are what led us to this point.
Mr. Foremain, the EU is seeking to control Northern Ireland's customs, despite Northern Ireland being British sovereign territory and the UK (perhaps) leaving the EU. How would you prefer to describe that?
Giving NI special status sounds nice. Maybe we should give the Republic of Ireland special status and dictate their customs policy?
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Northern Ireland isn't a 'lever for the EU'. It is simply the case that the Good Friday Agreement was made easier to achieve by the fact that both the UK and Eire were members of the EU. Now that the UK wants to leave the difficulties have resurfaced.
So Theresa May goes to the House of Commons, says she has explored all avenues, but the EU have been unrealistic about what the UK can offer (despite its obligations under Article 50). Reluctanty, she has accepted that there will be no deal... She will work with whoever wants to put sensible measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of no deal from late March 2019 - but No Deal Brexit it is....
Who can do anything to stop that? (Apart from Brussels of course...)
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
Not really.
Why not? Genuine question.
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
In that case it has to be 'No Deal'. The mandate is for 'Brexit' - not the conditions attached to it.
She's been very clear - end freedom of movement (eliminates Norway option), maintain territorial integrity of UK (eliminates Canada option because of Belfast Agreement) and no second vote. Any second referendum will be over her (metaphorical) dead body. All the more reason for the Brexiteers to keep her in place.
There isn't much precedent, but in other political situations lack of clear mandate means the question needs to be re-asked with further information. I am not an advocate of another referendum, but a no-deal Brexit was most definitely not what was offered. We were told there would be a deal, indeed it would be easy. There is therefore no mandate for such madness and anyone that says there is lying
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Whilst it is true that they don't need us as much as we need them, that's a meaningless relativism. They still need a deal a lot, for four reasons: (1) €39bn, (2) Irish border, (3) Security cooperation (4) Economics.
On the economics side, it's a mistake to view this as percentages of national trade. In political terms, what matters is specific groups of businesses who would be clobbered by a no-deal scenario, some of which are tiny in EU macro-economic terms but vital to specific countries (Maltese tourist industry, for example).
So Theresa May goes to the House of Commons, says she has explored all avenues, but the EU have been unrealistic about what the UK can offer (despite its obligations under Article 50). Reluctanty, she has accepted that there will be no deal... She will work with whoever wants to put sensible measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of no deal from late March 2019 - but No Deal Brexit it is....
Who can do anything to stop that? (Apart from Brussels of course...)
Not so clever if the result is massive economic disruption which ends up putting Corbyn (and even worse, McDonnell now unconstrained by the EU) into Downing Street.
It's funny that it doesn't matter how dismal a party conference is, it always produces a bounce.
I remember when the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003, and the next YouGov poll put the Conservatives 5% ahead,
Didnt end well for IDS though. He was subsequently set up on employing his wife or some such thing. Which we all know by now was pretty tame compared to what the thieving sods had been up to.
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
I think she's in favour of being seen to be forced into it.
+1 She has that move in reserve and the EU know it. She also has "EU unreasonable so we need to go No Deal having tried our best". Her going No Deal it would be much more effective for the electorate than a change of leader to a Brexiteer.
So Theresa May goes to the House of Commons, says she has explored all avenues, but the EU have been unrealistic about what the UK can offer (despite its obligations under Article 50). Reluctanty, she has accepted that there will be no deal... She will work with whoever wants to put sensible measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of no deal from late March 2019 - but No Deal Brexit it is....
Who can do anything to stop that? (Apart from Brussels of course...)
Not so clever if the result is massive economic disruption which ends up putting Corbyn (and even worse, McDonnell now unconstrained by the EU) into No 10.
The regulatory alignment built into Chequers was one of the few things i was holding onto. Outside of all single market controls would allow McDonnell to pretty much do whatever he wanted.
May can (but probably wont) come out of this as: "we tried, we wanted to maintain close relationships, but it is an unacceptable for the European Union to try and annexe part of the United Kingdom. An agreement on a deep and workable trade relationship seems to be unacceptable to the European Union. We will be leaving the EU on March 31st next year. If we fail to reach agreement on a withdrawal deal, I cannot pretend it wont be difficult. The EU would have inflicted maximum damage on the British economy and done so to punish us for leaving. We will never forget."
Resounding applause at party conference...
I have no idea whether a deal is in practice doable. But I would not support a speech like that which strikes all the wrong notes. IMO.
I would have thought that, if one were to walk away, it should simply be a factual statement along the lines of that it has proved not possible, despite all the claims of those who wanted Brexit, to come up with a deal which maintains the integrity of the UK, the SM and respects the GFA. Accordingly, since a democratic mandate is so important and not wanting to rely on a mandate two and a half years old given in different circumstances and in the absence of information now available, there needs to be a referendum on a No Deal Brexit / Remain as now basis. If necessary, I will seek an extension of Art 50 to allow this to happen. And once that result is in then it will be for the government to enact the result. In the meanwhile preparations to be stepped up for a no deal Brexit.
If the HoC won’t pass a new referendum bill then I will resign and wish my successor good luck because he/she will need it.
I certainly would not talk about punishments or revenge or any of that. We need to live with each other in the future not up the rhetoric.
If she were going to do this best done soon.
Of course, this all may be unnecessary if this is just the usual stuff which goes on. But some sort of Plan B is needed.
Anyway back to work. I will look in later to see if I need to start bulk buying lentils.
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Whilst it is true that they don't need us as much as we need them, that's a meaningless relativism. They still need a deal a lot, for four reasons: (1) €39bn, (2) Irish border, (3) Security cooperation (4) Economics.
On the economics side, it's a mistake to view this as percentages of national trade. In political terms, what matters is specific groups of businesses who would be clobbered by a no-deal scenario, some of which are tiny in EU macro-economic terms but vital to specific countries (Maltese tourist industry, for example).
I don't disagree with anything you say Mr. Nabavi, but anyone who has been involved in negotiations would see this as very stacked against the UK government, with the exception of point (1). I would also suggest that the EU negotiators seem a little smarter than ours, though that is an opinion, and matters seem to have improved since Davis skulked off. It could all still work out OK in the end. The one positive is that the EU, far from being the bogeyman of Brexitloon mythology is generally an organisation that thrives on compromise. That is our best bet
I’m not entirely clear why May is so against a second referendum. Would it not get her out of a hole?
I think she's in favour of being seen to be forced into it.
+1 She has that move in reserve and the EU know it. She also has "EU unreasonable so we need to go No Deal having tried our best". Her going No Deal it would be much more effective for the electorate than a change of leader to a Brexiteer.
Could be, but there's a chance she would fluff up a no deal outcome.
The more I think of the EU's reaction today I am coming to the conclusion that they have made a huge mistake by listening to the siren voices in the UK who have been in constant direct discussions with them including Chuka, Blair, Adonis and others and have decided to hard ball the negotiation expecting it to result in us voting to remain.
If the comments by Shapps are to be believed and it becomes more widespread and TM can assure the Country that the 39 billion will be used to protect UK jobs than a no deal must become the default result.
The irony is that of all the EU countries Ireland would be utterly devastated economically
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Whilst it is true that they don't need us as much as we need them, that's a meaningless relativism. They still need a deal a lot, for four reasons: (1) €39bn, (2) Irish border, (3) Security cooperation (4) Economics.
On the economics side, it's a mistake to view this as percentages of national trade. In political terms, what matters is specific groups of businesses who would be clobbered by a no-deal scenario, some of which are tiny in EU macro-economic terms but vital to specific countries (Maltese tourist industry, for example).
I don't know that it's 'meaningless relativism'. What it means is the penalty to giving in to perverse emotion is rather less for the EU than it is for us, and therefore less of a disincentive for their own intransigents.
Each side has dug its heels in, expecting the other to crack first. The EU may expect us to give in first, not appreciating that this is impossible for domestic political reasons.
It's funny that it doesn't matter how dismal a party conference is, it always produces a bounce.
I remember when the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003, and the next YouGov poll put the Conservatives 5% ahead,
I'm not sure this is to do with the party conference, I mean the fieldwork for this poll started on Saturday.
I think this is just part of the slow leakage from Labour to the LibDems that polls have recorded over the summer, probably due to Brexit, like we saw in the early months of 2017 when 'Article 50' hype was at its peak. I would still be pretty optimistic of winning the bulk of those people back though, based on the canvassing experience last year - people who said they were considering switching from Labour over to the LibDems or Greens were pretty persuadable even in the dark early days of the 2017 campaign, as compared to people who said they were leaning towards switching from Labour to the Tories, who were INCREDIBLY firm in saying they wouldn't even consider Corbyn's Labour at the start of the campaign.
I wonder if today is the turning point where the Country turns against the EU
They really have misjudged this.
Even I have been so angered by them I am prepared to consider no deal if I can be assured by the government that jobs will be protected, not least those of my family
So Theresa May goes to the House of Commons, says she has explored all avenues, but the EU have been unrealistic about what the UK can offer (despite its obligations under Article 50). Reluctanty, she has accepted that there will be no deal... She will work with whoever wants to put sensible measures in place to ameliorate the worst effects of no deal from late March 2019 - but No Deal Brexit it is....
Who can do anything to stop that? (Apart from Brussels of course...)
There two big assumptions in there. Mrs May is saying in effect that the ability to diverge from the EU is more important than maintaining a minimal border in Ireland and is also more important than any relationship with the EU and our neighbouring countries. I would question both those assumptions
It is indeed not a happy situation, and as I said on here a while ago I think a simple solution could be found. However, at the moment NI is a further lever for the EU in their negotiating position. The negotiators for the EU are like company directors with their shareholders being the 27. They will only do what is in the interest of the 27. This is an asymmetric negotiation which we will not come out on top of. They do not need us more than we need them. It is what many of us have said all along. We were told it was "Project Fear"
Whilst it is true that they don't need us as much as we need them, that's a meaningless relativism. They still need a deal a lot, for four reasons: (1) €39bn, (2) Irish border, (3) Security cooperation (4) Economics.
On the economics side, it's a mistake to view this as percentages of national trade. In political terms, what matters is specific groups of businesses who would be clobbered by a no-deal scenario, some of which are tiny in EU macro-economic terms but vital to specific countries (Maltese tourist industry, for example).
I don't know that it's 'meaningless relativism'. What it means is the penalty to giving in to perverse emotion is rather less for the EU than it is for us, and therefore less of a disincentive for their own intransigents.
Each side has dug its heels in, expecting the other to crack first. The EU may expect us to give in first, not appreciating that this is impossible for domestic political reasons.
And the clock carries on ticking.
Was Chequer's digging our heels in? It seemed to me that there were a lot of compromise elements in there that hacked off the ERG and their Ilk. There seemed to be no compromise response from the EU. I think TM could definitely blame the EU and lots of people would listen to that. Not a good outcome.
Comments
I'm amused you think it's outrageous to oppose the EU's attempt to annex British territory. Why do you think a customs union of 27 nation-states should be sacrosanct, to the extent of imposing it on part of a nation seeking to leave and bifurcating that nation's territory?
It's more of an affront than if the British insisted the Irish joined us in a customs union, because that would, at least, preserve the territorial integrity of the Irish Republic. [I don't support such a deal, I mention it as a counterpoint to the even more ludicrous proposition by the EU, which has your support].
Agreeing to this initially is what will cost May her job.
It took the then Foreign Secretary a little longer to realise what had happened...
Miss Cyclefree, with the EU, perhaps, but her own party might well defenestrate her first.
Mr. F, indeed.
The EU negotiators are simply trying to find a solution that is acceptable to the Republic of Ireland by giving NI special status. The RoI will continue to be their priority as they are a member and we have gone into confrontation mode as we wish to leave the club. It is pretty simple really. Making the EU a bogeyman does not enlighten our understanding of the situation
Could she not say that it is clear that no deal can be reached which both respects the GFA, the SM and the territorial integrity of the UK. Accordingly, the choice is a No Deal Brexit or Remain.
Giving NI special status sounds nice. Maybe we should give the Republic of Ireland special status and dictate their customs policy?
The one thing I can say I do not envy TM in all of this
Ipsos Mori have Con 39%, Lab 37%, Lib Dems 13%.
She's been very clear - end freedom of movement (eliminates Norway option), maintain territorial integrity of UK (eliminates Canada option because of Belfast Agreement) and no second vote. Any second referendum will be over her (metaphorical) dead body. All the more reason for the Brexiteers to keep her in place.
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1042783247007137792
Do you support the Downing Street declaration that said Britain has no strategic interest in Northern Ireland and effectively relinquished perpetual sovereignty?
Resounding applause at party conference...
Exotic spresem is the new covfefe.
https://twitter.com/asabenn/status/1042798143304355841
*bar loon remongers.
I also think it's 100% clear I don't support the EU's customs union being imposed on part of a nation that voted to leave, and placing a customs barrier within a nation state.
Mr. Foremain, decades of collusion by the political class with the EU, to the extent of literally promising a referendum and then reneging upon it after the election, are what led us to this point.
Which has always been their intention.
It is simply the case that the Good Friday Agreement was made easier to achieve by the fact that both the UK and Eire were members of the EU. Now that the UK wants to leave the difficulties have resurfaced.
"Europe Elects
@EuropeElects
1h1 hour ago
UK, Ipsos MORI poll:
CON-ECR: 39% (+1)
LAB-S&D: 37% (-1)
LDEM-ALDE: 13% (+3)
GREENS-G/EFA: 5% (+2)
SNP-G/EFA: 3% (-1)
UKIP-EFDD: 2% (-4)
PC-G/EFA: 0% (-1)
Field work: 14/09/18 – 18/09/18
Sample size: 1,070"
I remember when the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003, and the next YouGov poll put the Conservatives 5% ahead,
Who can do anything to stop that? (Apart from Brussels of course...)
On the economics side, it's a mistake to view this as percentages of national trade. In political terms, what matters is specific groups of businesses who would be clobbered by a no-deal scenario, some of which are tiny in EU macro-economic terms but vital to specific countries (Maltese tourist industry, for example).
I would have thought that, if one were to walk away, it should simply be a factual statement along the lines of that it has proved not possible, despite all the claims of those who wanted Brexit, to come up with a deal which maintains the integrity of the UK, the SM and respects the GFA. Accordingly, since a democratic mandate is so important and not wanting to rely on a mandate two and a half years old given in different circumstances and in the absence of information now available, there needs to be a referendum on a No Deal Brexit / Remain as now basis. If necessary, I will seek an extension of Art 50 to allow this to happen. And once that result is in then it will be for the government to enact the result. In the meanwhile preparations to be stepped up for a no deal Brexit.
If the HoC won’t pass a new referendum bill then I will resign and wish my successor good luck because he/she will need it.
I certainly would not talk about punishments or revenge or any of that. We need to live with each other in the future not up the rhetoric.
If she were going to do this best done soon.
Of course, this all may be unnecessary if this is just the usual stuff which goes on. But some sort of Plan B is needed.
Anyway back to work. I will look in later to see if I need to start bulk buying lentils.
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1042787465017192450
NEW THREAD
If the comments by Shapps are to be believed and it becomes more widespread and TM can assure the Country that the 39 billion will be used to protect UK jobs than a no deal must become the default result.
The irony is that of all the EU countries Ireland would be utterly devastated economically
What it means is the penalty to giving in to perverse emotion is rather less for the EU than it is for us, and therefore less of a disincentive for their own intransigents.
Each side has dug its heels in, expecting the other to crack first. The EU may expect us to give in first, not appreciating that this is impossible for domestic political reasons.
And the clock carries on ticking.
I think this is just part of the slow leakage from Labour to the LibDems that polls have recorded over the summer, probably due to Brexit, like we saw in the early months of 2017 when 'Article 50' hype was at its peak. I would still be pretty optimistic of winning the bulk of those people back though, based on the canvassing experience last year - people who said they were considering switching from Labour over to the LibDems or Greens were pretty persuadable even in the dark early days of the 2017 campaign, as compared to people who said they were leaning towards switching from Labour to the Tories, who were INCREDIBLY firm in saying they wouldn't even consider Corbyn's Labour at the start of the campaign.
They really have misjudged this.
Even I have been so angered by them I am prepared to consider no deal if I can be assured by the government that jobs will be protected, not least those of my family