Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Every time anyone has pushed May, she's given in. Thing is, that mobile cushion approach can't continue. At some point soon, she is either going to need to decide who to rat on, or she will have events make that decision for her.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Well I don't agree that the British have said they don't like foreigners. They have said they want controls on immigration, not least because, as you say, Theresa May presided over the biggest immigration numbers in history. There was a review in yesterdays Sunday Times of a new book that analyses the effect of immigration on society and how it will pan out in the future, "WhiteShift" I believe it is called, looks interesting. It responds to your view I think
Maybe you are right that she should have just ignored the reason why Leave won and done it her way. She would probably have been sacked, but at least stayed true to herself.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I thought David Davis and Dominic Raab were committed leavers?
Yes when May revealed the chequers plan conceived and agreed by Olly Robbins, whilst David Davis and his department worked on a plan as agreed with no 10, it was immediately obvious that David Davis was in charge. Personally I don’t think he should have been anywhere near being in charge of anything, but it seemed a waste of resources giving him a department.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Or it may get booked but come the big day will she really let her and her husband get in the plane?
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
Alistair Campbell is reverting to type with his invective and abuse against anybody who doesnt hold his views. He bullied journos when he was in No10 and now he seeks to bully all leavers. Then he has the cheek to go on about his mental illness and depression..well this cant help. Piers Morgan skewered him on GMB this morning when Campbell was talking about the march this weekend saying how it must lead to a new referendum. Morgan reminded him how he and Blair had totally ignored the 1.5million people who marched against the Iraq war..said it was sheer hypocriscy and i agree.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Lets say they are in their early 20s, married young!
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
Weren't Remainers made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition that lost fair and square to the Leavers?
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Your implication that Theresa May is trying to sabotage Brexit is ludicrous. She is trying to make it work. She appointed Brexiteers to important positions in order to try to make it a success. Boris could have been PM, do you believe he would have made a success of it?
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Every time anyone has pushed May, she's given in. Thing is, that mobile cushion approach can't continue. At some point soon, she is either going to need to decide who to rat on, or she will have events make that decision for her.
It looks like events will drive the outcome. I have seen a second source saying that the EU are demanding two backstops - a NI and a UK backstop. It was also just reported on the BBC. This is going absolutely nowhere.
If May just walked away now, she would survive and everyone would rally around her. But she is a committed Remainer determined to do a deal that makes real Brexit impossible.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Your implication that Theresa May is trying to sabotage Brexit is ludicrous. She is trying to make it work. She appointed Brexiteers to important positions in order to try to make it a success. Boris could have been PM, do you believe he would have made a success of it?
Yes, Boris would have made a success of it. He would have refused point blank to offer the backstop and would have walked away if required. The EU would have backed down. He would then have agreed CETA.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
All JRM wants is no deal and he doesn't care about the consequences, so it is easy to see where he would have taken us. Boris is more difficult to call but it is possible we would already be heading for a second referendum by now. He could well be the true closet remainer; it's the job he wants, and that is all he wants.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
Weren't Remainers made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition that lost fair and square to the Leavers?
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Lets say they are in their early 20s, married young!
Center Parcs. They wouldn't have married each other with such diametrically opposing views and him not prepared to compromise for the greater good and well-being of the marriage.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Lets say they are in their early 20s, married young!
Several times recently my wife has said to some on the lines of ‘What have you brought me to this time?’ For example when traveling in a ‘taxi’ with four bald tyres along the potholed road from the Thai border to Angkor Wat. It was, of course a different matter when we got there.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
Alistair Campbell is reverting to type with his invective and abuse against anybody who doesnt hold his views. He bullied journos when he was in No10 and now he seeks to bully all leavers. Then he has the cheek to go on about his mental illness and depression..well this cant help. Piers Morgan skewered him on GMB this morning when Campbell was talking about the march this weekend saying how it must lead to a new referendum. Morgan reminded him how he and Blair had totally ignored the 1.5million people who marched against the Iraq war..said it was sheer hypocriscy and i agree.
I've said it before but we wouldn't have voted for Brexit if Blair hadn't been PM.
1. The Lisbon Treaty non-referendum fiasco.
2. Opening the borders to low skilled immigration thus driving down the wages of British workers.
3. The lies and spin told over Iraq means people no longer takes any notice of their politicians or those in authority.
4. The financial crash leading to a decade of wage stagnation.
I'm sure there are other factors from the Nu-Labour years that helped create the perfect conditions for the UK to vote for Brexit.
I actually think Blair and Campbell realize the contribution they've made to Brexit and this explains their almost unhinged desire to overturn the result.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
Can anyone point out to me who said that we would be able to leave the EU on the same terms? I know someone on here said that a Leave campaigner said it, but I’ve googled it and cannot find it.
Certainly leavers said that this negotiation would be a lot easier than it's turned out to be. But I agree that a bizarre notion has developed on here which suggests that leavers said we'd keep all the goodies (like being able to live in Hungary).
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Exactly. And every Tory leader since Major has taken the view that the only way to keep the ERG head bangers on board is to tack toward their positions. This is how the referendum came about in the first place, and May's positioning after she became PM was clearly designed to put placating the ERG before the need for trying to create national unity around an agreed form of Brexit. The ERG is an irresistible force, and it has now come up against the immovable object that is the EU. The UK is in danger of being crushed between them.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
Alistair Campbell is reverting to type with his invective and abuse against anybody who doesnt hold his views. He bullied journos when he was in No10 and now he seeks to bully all leavers. Then he has the cheek to go on about his mental illness and depression..well this cant help. Piers Morgan skewered him on GMB this morning when Campbell was talking about the march this weekend saying how it must lead to a new referendum. Morgan reminded him how he and Blair had totally ignored the 1.5million people who marched against the Iraq war..said it was sheer hypocriscy and i agree.
I've said it before but we wouldn't have voted for Brexit if Blair hadn't been PM.
1. The Lisbon Treaty non-referendum fiasco.
2. Opening the borders to low skilled immigration thus driving down the wages of British workers.
3. The lies and spin told over Iraq meant people no longer takes any notice of their politicians or those in authority.
4. The financial crash leading to a decade of wage stagnation.
I'm sure there are other factors from the Nu-Labour years that helped create the perfect conditions for the UK to vote for Brexit.
I actually think Blair and Campbell realize the contribution they've made to Brexit and this explains their almost unhinged desire to overturn the result.
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Every time anyone has pushed May, she's given in. Thing is, that mobile cushion approach can't continue. At some point soon, she is either going to need to decide who to rat on, or she will have events make that decision for her.
I’m not sure that’s quite accurate David. Despite fierce attempts the Govt have resisted lots of amendments, including 5, I think, on staying in the CU permanently.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Your implication that Theresa May is trying to sabotage Brexit is ludicrous. She is trying to make it work. She appointed Brexiteers to important positions in order to try to make it a success. Boris could have been PM, do you believe he would have made a success of it?
I don't think it is ludicrous (obviously). She may not be explicitly trying to sabotage it, but she is by virtue of not really wanting to do it. She probably disagrees with every argument made by the Leave campaign, particularly immigration controls, as when she was in charge of that dept, she managed to increase a Labour government hooked on immigration's numbers.
In the past I thought she was doing the right thing because, as 48% wanted to Remain, that side had to be placated. But that isn't possible it seems. It has to be a revolutionary thing, and she isn't up to the job of doing that.
I don't think Johnson really believes in it either, but he would be a bit more ballsy because he wants to be seen as a hero.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
The absence of a plan on the part of Leavers is kind of a big deal.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
I don't understand your logic. You seem to admit that Leave voters were made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition which (just) beat the Remainers. Now that we may be getting a crystallised version of Leave it is quite reasonable to set that against the option of staying and even of crashing out with No Deal in a new referendum. It is pure masochism to say that we have to leave because we just about said so 2 years ago even though we now know that there will be considerable damage to the UK and there is no longer a majority for doing so.
Weren't Remainers made up of a number of groups wanting different things which together made a coalition that lost fair and square to the Leavers?
How do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?
Well, there's one way to find out, I guess...
There is, but there is no need to, its over
That's - that's an answer to a different question. The question was "how do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?" As in - has it or has it not changed since the referendum two-and-a-half years ago?
Not "is there a need to...?" or "Is it done or not?"
There may (or may not) be a need to; it may or may not be over (people can argue both positions either way; neither answer to those two is fact, but advocates will insist whichever position they hold is certainly fact, if for no other reason than signalling).
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Whilst Labour did not cause the Global financial crisis, they also did not anticipate any crisis. Brown structured the U.K. finances as though we wouldn’t have another recession. That is a structural deficit. He stood up at the despatch box and took credit for additional spending, he should therefore take the blame for claiming to end boom and bust.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
I think you are probably right, but they were not helped by the red lines which were put in place to appease those who thought that leaving was the right thing to do and that their version of leaving in particular was the one we should (have) pursue(d).
No FoM red line and a lot of problems go away. But of course the British public in polls have said they don't like foreigners, but this is where May should have lead not followed. She manifestly doesn't want to bring immigration down because she didn't do so when she was in charge of it, so she should have backed herself and said that FoM will be mitigated by all kinds of permissible restraints but that it is more important to leave the political structures of the EU which is how she interpreted the vote.
She did none of these things, thus infuriating leavers and remainers alike. Problem is, as the tweet above mentions, she is dealing with international treaties, not the Home Office, where no one cares from one fudge to another, not to say they don't notice them.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more or less in the way that we now observe.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
She was in the end the only candidate up for selection. Complaining that she is in charge is illogical. If Andrew Bridgen had fancied the job all he had to do was to put himself up for leadership in 2016. But he didn't. Neither did Boris.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Who can forget Nadine in tears as BoZo bravely ran away from the contest
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Labour left us totally unprepared for the ineviutable slowdown. Brown believed he had abolished th economic cycle, Mandy wanted his friends to bet filthy rich, Blair just let rip on a sea of consumer debt.
Labourites still cant come to terms with how bad their management was a decade later and were still paying for it.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Lets say they are in their early 20s, married young!
Center Parcs. They wouldn't have married each other with such diametrically opposing views and him not prepared to compromise for the greater good and well-being of the marriage.
If you are saying the wrong person is negotiating something dangerous and exciting that could be the best thing ever or a total disaster, I agree!
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Who can forget Nadine in tears as BoZo bravely ran away from the contest
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
The absence of a plan on the part of Leavers is kind of a big deal.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
I voted remain and am keen for the result to be respected. There are quite a few of us out there. However most of the remainers I have met think it is a terrible idea - I honestly don’t think any amount of reaching out would have ben successful. I respect their (your) views. The fact is though that we have a remain supporting prime minister and chancellor.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side. That was the only firm outer option, and it could have been quickly negotiated inwards where parties agreed additional rights and responsibilities. The current negotiations where we propose something which the EU then refuse is lunacy of the highest order.
Those on the losing side in the referendum like to claim there was no defined way of leaving, different people were motivated to vote by different factors etc, so how can it ever be reasonable to decide that because Theresa May's understanding of what Brexit means isn't available, there should be another vote, or we should just Remain?
I understand that they think any kind of leaving is a disaster, but we all knew they thought that before the vote, that's why they didn't want to leave, but more people did.
Fantastic. That's excellent. So channelling Liam Fox it will be the easiest process in history. So why does it seem to be such a balls up?
My personal opinion on why it is such a balls up is that it is because it is being negotiated by people who think leaving is the wrong thing to do.
Yes, the problem is that David Davis, Boris and Fox were the three stooges in charge.
What concessions would JRM have got that May didn't? The only clear thing would have been to know we were going to No Deal a bit sooner.
A couple plan a holiday. The man wants to go backpacking across the Himalayas, the wife is scared of flying, doesn't like heights and wants to go to Center Parcs... if the husband wins the argument but lets the wife plan the holiday, it will never get booked
Of course it will they will go to Center Parcs and have a great time. Backpacking across the Himalayas at his age, with his medical conditions, is a fantasy harking back to the "good old days" of 15 pints a night at the Rugby Club of many years ago. It would be a recipe for disaster and he would likely kill himself within five miles of the start.
Lets say they are in their early 20s, married young!
Center Parcs. They wouldn't have married each other with such diametrically opposing views and him not prepared to compromise for the greater good and well-being of the marriage.
If you are saying she is the wrong person is negotiating something dangerous and exciting that could be the best thing ever or a total disaster, I agree!
No. She is the right person! Negotiating for something dangerous and exciting that could be the best thing ever or a total disaster is not a position that, rightly, any PM of the UK should allow themselves to get into.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Which is why the question of how the delivery of the border solution is validated should be central to their demands in respect of the WA.
Before clicking, I thought there was a very high likelihood that he had been misquoted/misunderstood. I was wrong.
Why do they keep letting this ignorant twat go on the radio?
They may have assumed he couldn't tie his shoe laces so wouldn't get out of the house...
Of course technically if he were to move to Ireland (no restriction), take up residence (no restriction) and live there for five years (no restriction) he could apply for Irish citizenship and an Irish passport. But I very much doubt thats what he meant.
I doubt this particular back door route to EU citizenship for UK nationals will survive the post Brexit fallout.
You can get Irish citizenship if you have a parent or grandparent who is Irish. According to the Irish authorities, there has been a notable increase in the number of English citizens taking up this option since the referendum. I doubt the Irish will close off this route.
And if you are English and married to an EU citizen you have the same rights as them to live and work within the EU, so I understand.
Wrong. Only if they actually move there, and they would need to apply for an EEA Family Permit
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
She was in the end the only candidate up for selection. Complaining that she is in charge is illogical. If Andrew Bridgen had fancied the job all he had to do was to put himself up for leadership in 2016. But he didn't. Neither did Boris.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Are you referring to this Andrew Bridgen? https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1051624600600289281?s=21 I am intrigued by the notion that there was (is) a deep pool of talented, well-informed Tory Leavers who could have done a better negotiating job than the Leavers in the Cabinet. Obviously, there are tens of millions of people in the UK smarter and more talented than the likes of Davis, Fox, Johnson, Grayling, McVey, Mourdant, Leadsom and co, but that - of course - is different.
It is striking that the only Brexiteer with half a brain - Michael Gove - is the one who seems to understand that what the Buccaneers want is impossible to deliver.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Keeping us in the CU would be a tremendous result for the EU and their £100bn trade surplus with us...
Of course, remaining in the CU also keeps their kitty topped up - as they get a proportion of the revenues that the CET raises, too.
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Every time anyone has pushed May, she's given in. Thing is, that mobile cushion approach can't continue. At some point soon, she is either going to need to decide who to rat on, or she will have events make that decision for her.
Theresa May is not in control of events.
The stupidity was putting someone in charge of Brexit as they worked their notice....
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
The absence of a plan on the part of Leavers is kind of a big deal.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
I voted remain and am keen for the result to be respected. There are quite a few of us out there. However most of the remainers I have met think it is a terrible idea - I honestly don’t think any amount of reaching out would have ben successful. I respect their (your) views. The fact is though that we have a remain supporting prime minister and chancellor.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side. That was the only firm outer option, and it could have been quickly negotiated inwards where parties agreed additional rights and responsibilities. The current negotiations where we propose something which the EU then refuse is lunacy of the highest order.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence. Some engagement with the practical points they made would also have been beneficial.
At every stage Leavers have sought to ratchet up the hostility to Remain supporters and the EU. Instead of seeking to paper over the cracks, they have sought to insert a crowbar and widen them.
And now they complain that those they have abused and traduced are not lined up behind the mass immolation that the deathcult is planning. You have to admire the brass neck.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side.
This is just as fantastical as the rest of the Brexit mythology.
Tezza barely kept her job by throwing ons of red meat at the headbangers.
If the Lancaster house speech had instead been "No deal, Kent is a carpark, Airbus and Jaguar are leaving and we are stockpiling food" she wouldn't have made it out of the building.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Labour left us totally unprepared for the ineviutable slowdown. Brown believed he had abolished th economic cycle, Mandy wanted his friends to bet filthy rich, Blair just let rip on a sea of consumer debt.
Labourites still cant come to terms with how bad their management was a decade later and were still paying for it.
I must have missed the part where the Tories were demanding Labour change tack pre-crisis and stop spending. Remember "sharing the proceeds of growth?"
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
She was in the end the only candidate up for selection. Complaining that she is in charge is illogical. If Andrew Bridgen had fancied the job all he had to do was to put himself up for leadership in 2016. But he didn't. Neither did Boris.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Are you referring to this Andrew Bridgen? https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1051624600600289281?s=21 I am intrigued by the notion that there was (is) a deep pool of talented, well-informed Tory Leavers who could have done a better negotiating job than the Leavers in the Cabinet. Obviously, there are tens of millions of people in the UK smarter and more talented than the likes of Davis, Fox, Johnson, Grayling, McVey, Mourdant, Leadsom and co, but that - of course - is different.
It is striking that the only Brexiteer with half a brain - Michael Gove - is the one who seems to understand that what the Buccaneers want is impossible to deliver.
I did contemplate voting leave before deciding it was too much of an economic risk. One thing that comforted me was that Cameron had said he would be in charge no matter what the result. He would have done a better job than May.
And people voting for Leave and campaigning for Leave were not supporting one particular Tory over another in a hypothetical leadership contest.
Not the least interesting division among Leavers is between those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers didn't get behind Brexit and those Leavers who blame the current mess on the fact that Remainers weren't kept well away from Brexit.
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
To be fair ( I know you wont be) May is not a leaver and she is in charge. She could have chosen competent leavers to be part of her cabinet - she chose Johnson, Davis and Fox - incompetent yesterdays men. Worst of all is the fact that May will not make a decision. This is not the leavers fault. I accept they didn’t have a plan.
She was in the end the only candidate up for selection. Complaining that she is in charge is illogical. If Andrew Bridgen had fancied the job all he had to do was to put himself up for leadership in 2016. But he didn't. Neither did Boris.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Are you referring to this Andrew Bridgen?
I am not one to make comments on people as individuals but just looking at him you can see he's thick as mince.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
The Libertarian Pirate Island angle is the smallest slither of a side issue.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Labour left us totally unprepared for the ineviutable slowdown. Brown believed he had abolished th economic cycle, Mandy wanted his friends to bet filthy rich, Blair just let rip on a sea of consumer debt.
Labourites still cant come to terms with how bad their management was a decade later and were still paying for it.
I must have missed the part where the Tories were demanding Labour change tack pre-crisis and stop spending. Remember "sharing the proceeds of growth?"
the Tories were as idiotic as Labour, but they werent in the driving seat.
Theresa May's weird rant over immigration at the Tory conference a few years ago coupled with her atrocious performance on this issue while at the Home Office should have provided the necessary warning signs. She thinks a successful Brexit is one where the FoM red line is not breached to the exclusion of everything else. Of course back in 2016 we had all those regular reports of sub Saharans etc flooding into southern Europe with the prospect that if we remained in the EU many of them will find their way into the UK. Time has now moved on.
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
Dunno, ending FoM still seems like the main thing the voters are expecting, doesn't it? I know the Tory MPs who have been pushing for Brexit for all these years are mainly interested in the Libertarian Pirate Island angle, but there's no sign the voters are into that, and the Leave campaign wisely said as little as possible about it in the referendum.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
FoM is the reason why leave won, internal Tory political's is why the referendum was called - (well that and the fact the Tories won a majority so could get rid it of within coalition talks
The absence of a plan on the part of Leavers is kind of a big deal.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
I voted remain and am keen for the result to be respected. There are quite a few of us out there. However most of the remainers I have met think it is a terrible idea - I honestly don’t think any amount of reaching out would have ben successful. I respect their (your) views. The fact is though that we have a remain supporting prime minister and chancellor.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side. That was the only firm outer option, and it could have been quickly negotiated inwards where parties agreed additional rights and responsibilities. The current negotiations where we propose something which the EU then refuse is lunacy of the highest order.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence. Some engagement with the practical points they made would also have been beneficial.
At every stage Leavers have sought to ratchet up the hostility to Remain supporters and the EU. Instead of seeking to paper over the cracks, they have sought to insert a crowbar and widen them.
And now they complain that those they have abused and traduced are not lined up behind the mass immolation that the deathcult is planning. You have to admire the brass neck.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
Absolutely agree. In any case, for those worried about a supine, govt stooge as replacement, there could hardly be a better time for choosing someone new. The ERG or the Labour party won't accept someone who is cosy with the current government.
Can anyone point out to me who said that we would be able to leave the EU on the same terms? I know someone on here said that a Leave campaigner said it, but I’ve googled it and cannot find it.
Certainly leavers said that this negotiation would be a lot easier than it's turned out to be. But I agree that a bizarre notion has developed on here which suggests that leavers said we'd keep all the goodies (like being able to live in Hungary).
Is effectively what David Davis said before the referendum.
Mind you he also thought the Republic of Ireland was part of the UK.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement. 2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border. 3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal. 4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop! 2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more in the way that we now observe.
I think they argue that the EU will dismiss any border solution the UK presents, knowing that they can keep us in the CU.
Keeping us in the CU would be a tremendous result for the EU and their £100bn trade surplus with us...
Of course, remaining in the CU also keeps their kitty topped up - as they get a proportion of the revenues that the CET raises, too.
They get 80% of tariff revenue - I think it is something like 2.5bn per year.
But in relation to the first port by Pro_Rata, yes, the issue is that the EU will have no incentive whatsoever to agree any solution to the NI border once we are locked into the CU where they can control us.
Various conservatives seem to be dialling down on threatening TM position with Penny Mordaunt strongly backing her, Jeremy Hunt warning for everyone to calm down, Peter Bone not seeking her resignation, and a general call for conservatives to calm down
Of course she doesn’t need to resign
The ERG have achieved their objective of getting a permanent customs union ruled out
The ERG have been VERY successful. Every time they’ve pushed, they’ve succeeeded in getting their position accepted by the leadership, both before and since the referendum.
Every time anyone has pushed May, she's given in. Thing is, that mobile cushion approach can't continue. At some point soon, she is either going to need to decide who to rat on, or she will have events make that decision for her.
Theresa May is not in control of events.
The stupidity was putting someone in charge of Brexit as they worked their notice....
If you recall, she was in charge of Brexit way before she was 'on notice'. She was looking strong - so strong that she called an unnecessary election.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Who can forget Nadine in tears as BoZo bravely ran away from the contest
Yes, Nadine crying for a posh boy.
Spending £40 on a main makes you a posh boy. Discuss!
Sounds a bit melodramatic. Its been pouring with rain and maybe she was just having a bad hair day? Or she had just watched Piers Morgan and Alastair Campbell's screaming match on GMB and was still traumatised.
The absence of a plan on the part of Leavers is kind of a big deal.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
I voted remain and am keen for the result to be respected. There are quite a few of us out there. However most of the remainers I have met think it is a terrible idea - I honestly don’t think any amount of reaching out would have ben successful. I respect their (your) views. The fact is though that we have a remain supporting prime minister and chancellor.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side. That was the only firm outer option, and it could have been quickly negotiated inwards where parties agreed additional rights and responsibilities. The current negotiations where we propose something which the EU then refuse is lunacy of the highest order.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence. Some engagement with the practical points they made would also have been beneficial.
At every stage Leavers have sought to ratchet up the hostility to Remain supporters and the EU. Instead of seeking to paper over the cracks, they have sought to insert a crowbar and widen them.
And now they complain that those they have abused and traduced are not lined up behind the mass immolation that the deathcult is planning. You have to admire the brass neck.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
If you couldn't attack a caricature of your opponents argument, how could political forums exist?
He should have stood down on his own terms back in June.
I always said trying to go "on and on" wouldn't end well for him...
Same for TM after GE 2017
Well after she screwed up the election there was never going to be a "graceful" end for Theresa May... But yes as someone once said she's probably been a dead woman walking since all her authority drained away that night in June 17.
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side.
This is just as fantastical as the rest of the Brexit mythology.
Tezza barely kept her job by throwing ons of red meat at the headbangers.
If the Lancaster house speech had instead been "No deal, Kent is a carpark, Airbus and Jaguar are leaving and we are stockpiling food" she wouldn't have made it out of the building.
I disagree. She could have easily made most of the same speech but said that the starting point needed to be no deal, as this is where we would end up if negotiations failed, and it was taking a cautious and proper approach to plan for all eventualities. In fact she would have needed to be more civil towards the EU to indicate that she didn’t want to finish in that position.
I expect the vote to be respected (though it is a terrible idea). Some recognition of the concerns of Remainers and some basic civility from Leavers rather than labelling them as traitors, saboteurs, quislings etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
Some recognition of the concerns of Leavers and some basic civility from Remainers rather than labelling them as xenophobes, racists, swivel-eyed, etc (all of which have been making a return this week) would have gone a long way towards getting acquiescence.
So if Dave is supposed to be the worst PM evah on account of the referendum, what does that make May on account of the GE?
Dave was merely a lightweitght compared to the damage done by his two predecessors
The global financial crisis started in America. Brexit, however you view its merits, was entirely self-inflicted.
I can well understand your shame in Labours huge mismanagment of the UK economy, Bexit is simply a breeze compared to the hurricane of destruction Blair and Brown caused, and even Brexit couldnt have happened without the fetid hand of Blair on immigration.
Labour did not cause a hurricane. We did not have hurricanes at all until 1987 under the Thatcher government. As for the economy, Labour did not cause the global financial crisis. Nor did Labour cause Brexit. And according to which Conservatives you listen to, one version of Brexit or another will cost hundreds of billions of pounds.
Labour left us totally unprepared for the ineviutable slowdown. Brown believed he had abolished th economic cycle, Mandy wanted his friends to bet filthy rich, Blair just let rip on a sea of consumer debt.
Labourites still cant come to terms with how bad their management was a decade later and were still paying for it.
I must have missed the part where the Tories were demanding Labour change tack pre-crisis and stop spending. Remember "sharing the proceeds of growth?"
I think you are confusing Leaver supporters and the headbanging Tory right and Daily Mail. Most people I have discussed it with on either side have been very polite about it.
I'm not confusing anything. Prominent Leave advocates and their news outlets have been and continue to be strikingly offensive to and contemptuous of anyone supporting Remain. They have offered nothing to Remain supporters to make them reconsider their opposition, the very opposite.
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Like I said most Leave supporters have been surprised, and gracious in their views. Most remainers disappointed and firm in theirs. You are talking about politicians playing politics in a political system that is not all about Brexit. If Corbyn scrapes a one seat majority I am not expecting him to be trying to win around Tory voters - that’s politics.
Comments
The idea that Leavers might be in some negligible way responsible for the mess is, of course, not entertained.
Maybe you are right that she should have just ignored the reason why Leave won and done it her way. She would probably have been sacked, but at least stayed true to herself.
Piers Morgan skewered him on GMB this morning when Campbell was talking about the march this weekend saying how it must lead to a new referendum. Morgan reminded him how he and Blair had totally ignored the 1.5million people who marched against the Iraq war..said it was sheer hypocriscy and i agree.
Boris could have been PM, do you believe he would have made a success of it?
If May just walked away now, she would survive and everyone would rally around her. But she is a committed Remainer determined to do a deal that makes real Brexit impossible.
It was, of course a different matter when we got there.
1. The Lisbon Treaty non-referendum fiasco.
2. Opening the borders to low skilled immigration thus driving down the wages of British workers.
3. The lies and spin told over Iraq means people no longer takes any notice of their politicians or those in authority.
4. The financial crash leading to a decade of wage stagnation.
I'm sure there are other factors from the Nu-Labour years that helped create the perfect conditions for the UK to vote for Brexit.
I actually think Blair and Campbell realize the contribution they've made to Brexit and this explains their almost unhinged desire to overturn the result.
They are looking for atonement.
https://twitter.com/David_Leavitt/status/1051634095753744385
Is it a deliberate riff on those paintings of card playing dogs? My sense of irony is so blunted I can't tell any more.
In the past I thought she was doing the right thing because, as 48% wanted to Remain, that side had to be placated. But that isn't possible it seems. It has to be a revolutionary thing, and she isn't up to the job of doing that.
I don't think Johnson really believes in it either, but he would be a bit more ballsy because he wants to be seen as a hero.
They also should have had some kind of plan for dealing with the hostility of those that they had defeated and reaching out to them. I pointed this out for about six months solid after the referendum and was roundly abused for my pains. Now they wonder why Remain supporters aren't being helpful to them.
It's not their animal malice that bothers me, it's the gross stupidity.
The question was "how do we know there is no longer a majority for doing so?" As in - has it or has it not changed since the referendum two-and-a-half years ago?
Not "is there a need to...?" or "Is it done or not?"
There may (or may not) be a need to; it may or may not be over (people can argue both positions either way; neither answer to those two is fact, but advocates will insist whichever position they hold is certainly fact, if for no other reason than signalling).
To the extent I blame Leavers it is in their abject failure to provide a credible Leave contender to defeat May in the leadership election in 2016 leaving us with this dysfunctional situation at the top.
I've now lost track of what the ERG's problem actually is with Chequers.....
1. They say there are solutions for the border in NI that will meet the no hard border requirement.
2. Any backstop will only kick in for the length of time needed to implement a soft border.
3. The Future relationship document will be aspirational and not lock down the nature of the future trade deal.
4. A transition period would apply until end 2020.
If their assertions are honest then they can:
1. Allow the deal to progress, knowing that the backstop is moot, because they have a full border plan in their back pocket. If any new UK Internal barrier is a problem, they could even direct towards full UK SM adoption in the backstop!
2. They can move to replace TM in March next year and still have 21 months to steer to a Canada++ deal, which they still assert is a dead easy deal to reach.
For their purposes, they do not even need to have a time limited backstop, just a backstop conditional on their ready to go border being implemented, and they should be pressing simply to ensure the detail of that conditionality ensures an honest and unbiased verification of the border implementation when it is ready.
If, on the other hand, their assertions are rancidly dishonest, then I would expect them to be behaving more or less in the way that we now observe.
Saying that "oh the Remainers are in charge what do you expect" is nonsensical (I'm in a good mood so let's not say "moronic") as all the smart Leavers either voted for May or were part of a process whereby she was the only candidate.
Labourites still cant come to terms with how bad their management was a decade later and were still paying for it.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1051777885076373504
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1051777885076373504
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1051779448666763264
I have always said that the only way to negotiate was from the no deal side. That was the only firm outer option, and it could have been quickly negotiated inwards where parties agreed additional rights and responsibilities. The current negotiations where we propose something which the EU then refuse is lunacy of the highest order.
https://twitter.com/propertyspot/status/1051624600600289281?s=21
I am intrigued by the notion that there was (is) a deep pool of talented, well-informed Tory Leavers who could have done a better negotiating job than the Leavers in the Cabinet. Obviously, there are tens of millions of people in the UK smarter and more talented than the likes of Davis, Fox, Johnson, Grayling, McVey, Mourdant, Leadsom and co, but that - of course - is different.
It is striking that the only Brexiteer with half a brain - Michael Gove - is the one who seems to understand that what the Buccaneers want is impossible to deliver.
Of course, remaining in the CU also keeps their kitty topped up - as they get a proportion of the revenues that the CET raises, too.
The stupidity was putting someone in charge of Brexit as they worked their notice....
At every stage Leavers have sought to ratchet up the hostility to Remain supporters and the EU. Instead of seeking to paper over the cracks, they have sought to insert a crowbar and widen them.
And now they complain that those they have abused and traduced are not lined up behind the mass immolation that the deathcult is planning. You have to admire the brass neck.
Tezza barely kept her job by throwing ons of red meat at the headbangers.
If the Lancaster house speech had instead been "No deal, Kent is a carpark, Airbus and Jaguar are leaving and we are stockpiling food" she wouldn't have made it out of the building.
He should have stood down on his own terms back in June.
I always said trying to go "on and on" wouldn't end well for him...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/06/24/speaker-cornered-time-for-john-bercow-to-stand-down-as-speaker/
And people voting for Leave and campaigning for Leave were not supporting one particular Tory over another in a hypothetical leadership contest.
If there hadn't been mass immigration from 2004 onwards, UKIP wouldn't have won the Euros or got 12% at a GE. FoM is the reason the referendum was called, and the reason Leave won. It is all it is about.
But if he did, we'd've lost two Speakers in a row in less than glorious circumstances after centuries of them retiring gracefully.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1051783834092691456
This will send Brexiteers into a fit of screeching rage about the democratic outrage of allowing Parliament to have a proper debate about Brexit.
Still, if rumours are to be believed, JRM wants to be speaker. Much as I find his politics execrable, I think JRM would make an excellent speaker.
In any case, for those worried about a supine, govt stooge as replacement, there could hardly be a better time for choosing someone new. The ERG or the Labour party won't accept someone who is cosy with the current government.
Mind you he also thought the Republic of Ireland was part of the UK.
But in relation to the first port by Pro_Rata, yes, the issue is that the EU will have no incentive whatsoever to agree any solution to the NI border once we are locked into the CU where they can control us.
(Of course one of these days there will be actual Brexit news).
And now they wonder why people who they have sought to marginalise have chosen to act in a manner that they find unhelpful.
Edited extra bit: Cartamandua[sp] might be another comparison worth considering.
Plenty of betting opportunities there.