Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
IF the EU agreed that the endgame had to be a soft border at the NI land border and then CETA, leavers may agree to an extended timetable of 'transition' to get there if both sides agreed to the principle and it was just a question of putting in place the technology.
But the EU have no intention whatsoever of agreeing to this. This is a power play, not about solving a problem.
The EU are planning to walk away from the Brexit negotiations tomorrow.
You can tell that's what they're planning because *they keep saying it*.
Though I realize that listening to what the EU are saying is an idea that seems to have no traction whatsoever in Maybot's bunker.
Can't wait for all the comments here saying that they've "overplayed their hand"
I think the EU will back down and strike a deal. Three reasons, Not least because of all their member states other than the departing one Ireland are set to suffer most of all. It’s the Irish government who will finally call it off saying to EU, we tried but let’s now compromise and strike the deal. And secondly, as Merkel has been explaining what is sacrosanct to the EU project and non negotiable, the compromise from EU May needs to strike the deal doesn’t harm what Merkel has been talking about. Thirdly, a lot of focus has been on pain of no deal, chaos to be untangled, but that’s not the key bit of no deal, it’s the place of antagonism and competition both parties are left in with no deal that’s ultimately the problem for EU and Ireland, a border not just in Irish Sea, but all round Britain’s coast.
Of course there is going to be a deal.
What exactly do you think is going to be agreed?
British government already moved since last summit The two parties are very close to a deal, it’s just EUs backstop to backstop that’s the hold up, and EU can easily back down on that, the back down on that does not hit EU or SM fundamentals and avoids the antagonism of no deal relationship. The agreed deal is UK stays in CU. I know yourself speaking for hard line leavers have objections to that type of vassal state Brexit, but they can to some extent be mitigated in further agreements, also your concerns would lose in the commons and in a ref put to the country yes or no on the deal. Sorry about that old bean, but it’s going to happen.
If you had followed what Barnier has said, CU membership on its own does not in any way solve the NI border issue. The UK would have to stay aligned with all SM regulations as well. The very reason that Barnier has rejected an all UK backstop is that it would allow the UK to stay in the SM without adhering to the four freedoms. So the EU are not going to agree this deal.
They will insist on SM+CU, which means the four freedoms. The other option is to split off NI and have CETA. This has always been their (totally unreasonable) position. Your option is neither of these, so will not be available.
Why is it unreasonable of the EU to require a deal which accords with their legal framework?
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
That's a misnomer.
A technical solution can be found as soon as both parties want to find a technical solution. If the EU accepted a technical solution was the right move they could work on it and it would be possible. If the EU believe their solution is better they have zero reason to work on it and it can never be found.
It's not as if a technical solution is something that actually exists in the wild and is waiting for someone to discover it. It is an acceptable political compromise that is held up by politics, nothing more, nothing less.
British government already moved since last summit The two parties are very close to a deal, it’s just EUs backstop to backstop that’s the hold up, and EU can easily back down on that, the back down on that does not hit EU or SM fundamentals and avoids the antagonism of no deal relationship. The agreed deal is UK stays in CU. I know yourself speaking for hard line leavers have objections to that type of vassal state Brexit, but they can to some extent be mitigated in further agreements, also your concerns would lose in the commons and in a ref put to the country yes or no on the deal. Sorry about that old bean, but it’s going to happen.
If you had followed what Barnier has said, CU membership on its own does not in any way solve the NI border issue. The UK would have to stay aligned with all SM regulations as well. The very reason that Barnier has rejected an all UK backstop is that it would allow the UK to stay in the SM without adhering to the four freedoms. So the EU are not going to agree this deal.
They will insist on SM+CU, which means the four freedoms. The other option is to split off NI and have CETA. This has always been their (totally unreasonable) position. Your option is neither of these, so will not be available.
Why is it unreasonable of the EU to require a deal which accords with their legal framework?
The EU can do whatever they want. We don't have to accept it.
The point however is that CU membership as an overall outcome is not actually available.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
If you had followed what Barnier has said, CU membership on its own does not in any way solve the NI border issue. The UK would have to stay aligned with all SM regulations as well. The very reason that Barnier has rejected an all UK backstop is that it would allow the UK to stay in the SM without adhering to the four freedoms. So the EU are not going to agree this deal.
They will insist on SM+CU, which means the four freedoms. The other option is to split off NI and have CETA. This has always been their (totally unreasonable) position. Your option is neither of these, so will not be available.
Why is it unreasonable of the EU to require a deal which accords with their legal framework?
CETA accords with their legal framework. But they're refusing to allow that for NI and so are demanding a split in this country, that is unreasonable.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, just as we need to respect the integrity of the EU, they should respect the integrity of the UK. They need to find a solution that accords with OUR legal framework too.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
DUP only object if UK is divided. If NI is treated different to GB. In that they're no different than SCON.
It is the ERG that will object more to a never-ending UKEU Customs Union.
Yes and no - the EU are saying that a never-ending UKEU Customs Union will still require a regulatory border in the Irish Sea which is also unacceptable to the DUP. In order to 'solve' the NI border, you have to follow the same regulations on both sides.
If the UK was in a CU AND followed EU regulations as well, then that is cherry picking - being in the SM by the backdoor. This would mean the four freedoms. That is why Barnier is insisting on the regulatory border in the Irish Sea even if it accepts an all UK backstop.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
It is quite possible a majority of Tory MPs, bar ERG hardliners and most Labour MPs bar Corbynistas and Labour Leave MPs like Hoey will vote for it too if May gives vague promises about an ultimate technical solution to the Irish border thus ending the backstop and enabling CETA
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
Three comments on the EU and the NI backstop. 1. The EU hasn't budged an inch on this since the start. It has shown some flexibility on other issues. 2. If the the EU continues to insist, we will eventually agree the NI backstop. Despite the bravado, permanent no deal isn't viable. 3. The EU may decide forcing the issue is more effort than itsi worth, especially if we look likely to go for SM+CU for other reasons anyway.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
It is quite possible a majority of Tory MPs, bar ERG hardliners and most Labour MPs bar Corbynistas and Labour Leave MPs like Hoey will vote for it too if May gives vague promises about an ultimate technical solution to the Irish border thus ending the backstop and enabling CETA
Which of course doesn't answer the implicit question: who passes the next budget (or anything else)? That coalition won't support *anything* else she needs. And she's just terminally pissed off a big chunk of her current supporting MPs.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
If the outcome is SM+CU+four freedoms then the backstop will not apply. But why bother with that? You might as well remain.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
If the outcome is SM+CU+four freedoms then the backstop will not apply. But why bother with that? You might as well remain.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
If the outcome is SM+CU+four freedoms then the backstop will not apply. But why bother with that? You might as well remain.
Well we would Remain if No Deal anyway
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
I feel the hand of history on my shoulder.... The time could be right to stand for the new fiscally dry conservative not obsessed with europe and gays party in my constituency.. ..
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
It is quite possible a majority of Tory MPs, bar ERG hardliners and most Labour MPs bar Corbynistas and Labour Leave MPs like Hoey will vote for it too if May gives vague promises about an ultimate technical solution to the Irish border thus ending the backstop and enabling CETA
Which of course doesn't answer the implicit question: who passes the next budget (or anything else)? That coalition won't support *anything* else she needs. And she's just terminally pissed off a big chunk of her current supporting MPs.
try again.
Better than crashing the economy and losing Scotland and NI under No Deal. She could then proceed vote by vote
It is also no secret May has been planning for a pre Christmas general election if needed.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
If the outcome is SM+CU+four freedoms then the backstop will not apply. But why bother with that? You might as well remain.
No £9 billion net payment. That will do me nicely.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
If his behaviour or his current regime is such a problem that he should go for it, then there is no reason that should not be now. If it is not to be now, then fine, so long as people acknowledge that that is to say there is no reason for that to be a reason for him to go later.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
These *are* the options.
However Mrs May can attempt reinvention and try to lead option2 (and unfortunately many will buy it for want of anybody demonstrably better in the available timescale).
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession..
That is simply untrue, the leadership of the party has already proposed concessions, its why they have trouble with backbenchers. The Tories are divided, that's the whole point.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
I don't assume that but if May is replaced by someone who doesn't genuinely believe no deal is better than a bad deal then we're back to square one. EU refuse to budge and the new PM has no choice other than total abject surrender once more.
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
It will be for the whole UK too.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is is?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in t and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
You (predictably) did not answer the question.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
If the outcome is SM+CU+four freedoms then the backstop will not apply. But why bother with that? You might as well remain.
Well we would Remain if No Deal anyway
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
These *are* the options.
However Mrs May can attempt reinvention and try to lead option2 (and unfortunately many will buy it for want of anybody demonstrably better in the available timescale).
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
No 40 Tory MPs prefer SM and CU to No Deal and will vote for that or EUref2 or even no confidence the government rather than accept No Deal
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
There will be only one way to have an orderly Brexit, and there will be only one way to have an orderly retreat from it. That's the binary choice we will face.
Unfortunately, if adopted, this is likely to be quite effective for a short while in tory/lab polling terms. And hence another barrier to the pusillanimous erg. Possibly long enough for the suggested 5y CU to slide thro like a snake in the grass.
I suggested a 5 to 7 year transition whilst we remained in the Single Market/Customs Union back in 2016.
What would the backstop be?
Permanent membership of the Single Market and Customs Union for Northern Ireland as most Northern Irish voters want
Well, that is a fantasy. But on the bright side, if it was agreed, it would guarantee CETA as the solution because at that point nobody would have any need to agree anything else.
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
I am going to ask you a simple question. Do you actually believe there is a majority in the HoC for the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop? If so, who is it that you think are actually going to vote for this?
Yes, a majority of Labour MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU, all LD, SNP, PC and Green MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU and about 40 Tory MPs back staying permanently in the SM and CU. The DUP could not also complain if the backstop terms applied to the whole UK
Do that and Mrs May's government can't pass a budget(or probably anything else) again.
It is quite possible a majority of Tory MPs, bar ERG hardliners and most Labour MPs bar Corbynistas and Labour Leave MPs like Hoey will vote for it too if May gives vague promises about an ultimate technical solution to the Irish border thus ending the backstop and enabling CETA
Which of course doesn't answer the implicit question: who passes the next budget (or anything else)? That coalition won't support *anything* else she needs. And she's just terminally pissed off a big chunk of her current supporting MPs.
try again.
She could then proceed vote by vote
It is also no secret May has been planning for a pre Christmas general election if needed.
ie lose every one & then pick the mad einstein option. Genius.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
I don't assume that but if May is replaced by someone who doesn't genuinely believe no deal is better than a bad deal then we're back to square one. EU refuse to budge and the new PM has no choice other than total abject surrender once more.
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
I really do think you may need to consider your expectation management.
It will be TM deal or as TM said yesterday she will open it to the HOC to decide
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
There will be only one way to have an orderly Brexit, and there will be only one way to have an orderly retreat from it. That's the binary choice we will face.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
I don't assume that but if May is replaced by someone who doesn't genuinely believe no deal is better than a bad deal then we're back to square one. EU refuse to budge and the new PM has no choice other than total abject surrender once more.
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
I really do think you may need to consider your expectation management.
It will be TM deal or as TM said yesterday she will open it to the HOC to decide
What TM deal? TM hasn't made a deal.
It will be Barnier's deal or no deal. TM has zero strength and zero power. She either folds completely to Barnier or she doesn't get a deal.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
If you read what I am saying, you will see that the issue is not 'Tory hardline nutters'. The issue is that MPs will be forced to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop not linked to any ultimate outcome and the HoC will never vote for this - there would be an overwhelming majority against.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
These *are* the options.
However Mrs May can attempt reinvention and try to lead option2 (and unfortunately many will buy it for want of anybody demonstrably better in the available timescale).
I rather suspect that like the Boy Who Cried Wolf even if May did that now she wouldn't be believed.
That's a good point. But, as we saw from the response to her monday commons 'statement', nobody believes her now and she's still there for want of any other Leader option.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
These *are* the options.
However Mrs May can attempt reinvention and try to lead option2 (and unfortunately many will buy it for want of anybody demonstrably better in the available timescale).
I rather suspect that like the Boy Who Cried Wolf even if May did that now she wouldn't be believed.
That's a good point. But, as we saw from the response to her monday commons 'statement', nobody believes her now and she's still there for want of any other Leader option.
Indeed and as long as she remains she is going to keep folding. That's all she knows how to do. May won't stand up to Barnier, and if her MPs won't stand up to her then that means it is Barnier's deal that is the inevitable outcome.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
There will be only one way to have an orderly Brexit, and there will be only one way to have an orderly retreat from it. That's the binary choice we will face.
Can you explain how you see each option?
Ratify the withdrawal agreement, backstop and all, or revoke notification of Article 50.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
If you read what I am saying, you will see that the issue is not 'Tory hardline nutters'. The issue is that MPs will be forced to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop not linked to any ultimate outcome and the HoC will never vote for this - there would be an overwhelming majority against.
The HoC will vote for it if it is the agreed deal. They will pinch their noses, swallow their pride, look the other way and kiss the boots of Barnier and pretend they didn't.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
I don't assume that but if May is replaced by someone who doesn't genuinely believe no deal is better than a bad deal then we're back to square one. EU refuse to budge and the new PM has no choice other than total abject surrender once more.
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
I really do think you may need to consider your expectation management.
It will be TM deal or as TM said yesterday she will open it to the HOC to decide
I don't think she actually said that. She has promised a meaningful vote anyway, so I think that was all she was saying.
But if May says 'No Deal' because of the backstop, would you agree that the only option other than No Deal is cancelling Brexit altogether? Do you actually think May will recommend that after everything she has said?
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
I may be being overly cynical but this seems very staged. In particular, the raft of "Project Fear Mk 2" stories that are proliferating, some of them seemingly from government sources, lead me to believe that the plan here is for the EU to walk out of the negotiations and for May to go back to Parliament and say that the only way to honour the result is to No Deal, but she feels there isn't enough support for this so the only way is to go back to the country and have another referendum - Reverse Brexit (and lose our rebate and no doubt a lot more) v No Deal (and lose more still).
The path to a second referendum is a murky one, but I'm sure this is where Olly Robbins and the EU want us to go, and the stories in the paper, and John Major intervening, have the air of the first shots of the Reverse Brexit campaign being fired.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
Thought your usual position re TMay was they can't win a tory VoNC?
If they could effectively sack her I don't think they'd hesitate to implement a different policy which they believe is in the national Interest.
But the EU won't grant an extension except in very extreme circumstances (eg having a change of government and a remain referendum). They would refuse an extension and continue to say "sign this deal or no deal" as they think they have us by the short and curlies.
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
If you read what I am saying, you will see that the issue is not 'Tory hardline nutters'. The issue is that MPs will be forced to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop not linked to any ultimate outcome and the HoC will never vote for this - there would be an overwhelming majority against.
The HoC will vote for it if it is the agreed deal. They will pinch their noses, swallow their pride, look the other way and kiss the boots of Barnier and pretend they didn't.
But there can't be an agreed deal - that is the whole point! May cannot even get Barnier to agree a UK wide backstop as part of A50 because he says it is illegal and has to be negotiated outside of A50 after Brexit.
No trade deal is going to be agreed as part of this process - nobody is pretending about this any more. ALL that MPs will get to vote on is the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. They will have to agree a permanent backstop without having any agreed trade outcome. It just won't happen. And for that reason, I don't think May will even bother if she can't get the EU to back down.
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
There will be another election by 2022. Delay until after that.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
What negotiation? The negotiation is the EU says "sign this" and waits until we do. That is all that has happened since May took charge.
So if you want to know what the detail of the backstop is you need to look at what the EU have published. That's it.
I may be being overly cynical but this seems very staged. In particular, the raft of "Project Fear Mk 2" stories that are proliferating, some of them seemingly from government sources, lead me to believe that the plan here is for the EU to walk out of the negotiations and for May to go back to Parliament and say that the only way to honour the result is to No Deal, but she feels there isn't enough support for this so the only way is to go back to the country and have another referendum - Reverse Brexit (and lose our rebate and no doubt a lot more) v No Deal (and lose more still).
The path to a second referendum is a murky one, but I'm sure this is where Olly Robbins and the EU want us to go, and the stories in the paper, and John Major intervening, have the air of the first shots of the Reverse Brexit campaign being fired.
This is of course only a hunch.
To judge from opinion round here, that really would be the Einstein option.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
I may be being overly cynical but this seems very staged. In particular, the raft of "Project Fear Mk 2" stories that are proliferating, some of them seemingly from government sources, lead me to believe that the plan here is for the EU to walk out of the negotiations and for May to go back to Parliament and say that the only way to honour the result is to No Deal, but she feels there isn't enough support for this so the only way is to go back to the country and have another referendum - Reverse Brexit (and lose our rebate and no doubt a lot more) v No Deal (and lose more still).
The path to a second referendum is a murky one, but I'm sure this is where Olly Robbins and the EU want us to go, and the stories in the paper, and John Major intervening, have the air of the first shots of the Reverse Brexit campaign being fired.
This is of course only a hunch.
To judge from opinion round here, that really would be the Einstein option.
From a party political view it's an absolutely barmy idea, which is why I think it's got a good chance of happening.
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
There will be another election by 2022. Delay until after that.
That certainly wouldn't be agreed. Do you think the EU want another three or four or even five years of this? Do you think they will be willing to delay it until halfway through the next budgetary cycle? Do you think Barnier would agree, in effect, to a time-limited SM and CU that May has been desperately trying to foist on him?
If you believe any of that, may I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
The EU are planning to walk away from the Brexit negotiations tomorrow.
You can tell that's what they're planning because *they keep saying it*.
Though I realize that listening to what the EU are saying is an idea that seems to have no traction whatsoever in Maybot's bunker.
Can't wait for all the comments here saying that they've "overplayed their hand"
I think the EU will back down and strike a deal Not least because Ireland are set to suffer a lot of focus has been on pain antagonism and competition both parties are left in with no deal that’s ultimately the problem
Of course there is going to be a deal.
What exactly do you think is going to be agreed?
two parties are very close to a deal, it’s just EUs backstop to backstop that’s the hold up, EU can easily back down on that, the back down does not hit EU or SM fundamentals and avoids antagonism of no deal relationship. The agreed deal is UK stays in CU. I know yourself speaking for hard line leavers have objections to that type of vassal state Brexit, but they can to some extent be mitigated, also your concerns would lose in the commons and in a ref put to the country yes or no on the deal.
If you had followed what Barnier has said, CU membership on its own does not in any way solve the NI border issue. The UK would have to stay aligned with all SM regulations as well. The very reason that Barnier has rejected an all UK backstop is that it would allow the UK to stay in the SM without adhering to the four freedoms. So the EU are not going to agree this deal.
They will insist on SM+CU, which means the four freedoms. The other option is to split off NI and have CETA. This has always been their (totally unreasonable) position. Your option is neither of these, so will not be available.
Well, we will keep this post of yours and see what happens. 🤔 I did follow what Barnier and EU said, I just don’t believe they can’t move from it.
CU+the Barnier bit you mention fudged = deal Brit and EU sign, British Parliament and all Parliaments stamp, and for good measure UK has a 1975 do you back this deal ref 21st March to get 60% of public endorsing it too.
It’s not the chaos of no deal, it’s the antagonistic and competitive relationship both parties end up in that is bigger threat than any of the details currently pokerfaced over.
Oh. And the Irish. EU member who suffer greatly from no deal, so will start to modify their position, any second now
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
But there can't be an agreed deal - that is the whole point! May cannot even get Barnier to agree a UK wide backstop as part of A50 because he says it is illegal and has to be negotiated outside of A50 after Brexit.
No trade deal is going to be agreed as part of this process - nobody is pretending about this any more. ALL that MPs will get to vote on is the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. They will have to agree a permanent backstop without having any agreed trade outcome. It just won't happen. And for that reason, I don't think May will even bother if she can't get the EU to back down.
If May stays in charge then there has to be an agreed deal, as she and Robbins are petrified of no deal. So it will be Barnier's deal. Which is a transition and the backstop, nothing more.
The negotiations are fictitious. The EU may concede window dressing but they think we are impotent and will give them everything they want. And we (Robbins and May) think we are impotent and are desperate for a deal. So look at what the EU are proposing that is the deal.
May isn't brave enough to say no deal. The HOC isn't brave enough to say no deal.
The only alternative is that someone becomes brave enough and May is deposed.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Yes, the central political fact is that there is no fudgy way to kick the can past next March unless the EU completely changes its position. Something has to break.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Especially in the context of an intransigent EU trying to demand the break up of our country.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop for NI to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
So our Remain establishment has now become so unhinged that they will even keep a Speaker in his job after an official, independent report has said he should resign?
The elite have been driven totally bonkers by Brexit!
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
The EU won't agree to CU+'regulatory alignment for goods'.
They will agree to CU+SM which is Brexit In Name Only, but will demand full implementation of the four freedoms (an SM rule) and full fiscal contributions without a rebate (also an SM rule).
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
There will be another election by 2022. Delay until after that.
That certainly wouldn't be agreed. Do you think the EU want another three or four or even five years of this? Do you think they will be willing to delay it until halfway through the next budgetary cycle? Do you think Barnier would agree, in effect, to a time-limited SM and CU that May has been desperately trying to foist on him?
If you believe any of that, may I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
Pay into their budget for another five years and revisit in 2024 or so, job done.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Well, we will keep this post of yours and see what happens. 🤔 I did follow what EU Barnier and EU said, I just don’t believe they can’t move from it.
CU+the Barnier bit you mention fudged = deal Brit and EU sign, British Parliament and all Parliaments stamp, and for good measure UK has a 1975 do you back this deal ref 21st March to get 60% of public endorsing it too.
It’s not the chaos of no deal, it’s the antagonistic and competitive relationship both parties end up in that is bigger threat than any of the details currently pokerfaced over.
Oh. And the Irish. EU member who suffer greatly from no deal, so will start to modify their position, any second now
They can budge. Look how blatantly the Commission flouts the law when it suits them (e.g. Selmayr, the ban on British beef but not French beef). If they had the will, a way would be found.
But ultimately, they won't budge, because they believe firmly in the integrity of their project as they define it ahead of real life, common sense, economic reality and democratic processes. It's stupid, short-sighted and likely to end in disaster for everyone, us first and them a little later. But it is entirely typical of a block where being a third-rate drunk with a track record of Fascistic behaviour and a deep love of helping big business avoid tax is considered de rigeur for its highest office.
So that is why I have been predicting this mess all the way through.
Most people on here seem to think May will keep folding.
But is that right? If she thinks that if she folds there is no way such a deal will get through the Commons then surely folding is the worst option and the only sensible course is to not fold and see what happens then.
Brexit is a classic example of how not to run a project. The prats who proposed it couldn’t organise piss ups, orgies and sales in respectively breweries, brothels and whelk stalls.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
There will be only one way to have an orderly Brexit, and there will be only one way to have an orderly retreat from it. That's the binary choice we will face.
Can you explain how you see each option?
Ratify the withdrawal agreement, backstop and all, or revoke notification of Article 50.
Dear PrimeMinister, please lose your minority gov's majority (DUP) or break your party in two(ERG+). ...Oh, you want another option? Surely not?
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything. 2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
With respect why do you think an actual Brexiteer will first get elected to lead the party and second overcome the huge HOC majority against no deal
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
I don't assume that but if May is replaced by someone who doesn't genuinely believe no deal is better than a bad deal then we're back to square one. EU refuse to budge and the new PM has no choice other than total abject surrender once more.
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
I really do think you may need to consider your expectation management.
It will be TM deal or as TM said yesterday she will open it to the HOC to decide
I don't think she actually said that. She has promised a meaningful vote anyway, so I think that was all she was saying.
But if May says 'No Deal' because of the backstop, would you agree that the only option other than No Deal is cancelling Brexit altogether? Do you actually think May will recommend that after everything she has said?
She would not recommend it, she would let Parliament do the dirty work and vote for EUref2 and say she had to accept what Parliament voted for
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
There will be another election by 2022. Delay until after that.
That certainly wouldn't be agreed. Do you think the EU want another three or four or even five years of this? Do you think they will be willing to delay it until halfway through the next budgetary cycle? Do you think Barnier would agree, in effect, to a time-limited SM and CU that May has been desperately trying to foist on him?
If you believe any of that, may I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
Pay into their budget for another five years and revisit in 2024 or so, job done.
No, they wouldn't accept that for the reasons I give above.
I think they would seize gratefully on an offer to withdraw notice under A50. After all, what could more firmly prove their mantra of 'ever closer union' and their insistence that processes trump democracy?
But not to extend it and certainly not beyond six months. If May could have got it extended for five years she would have achieved what Chequers was essentially trying to do, and in case you hadn't noticed, that has been rejected.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Remain is better than BINO.
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
Indeed as 48% of the country told you, Remain is the best option. Good to see you finally seeing the light.
Corbyn may be PM by next summer the way Brexit negotiations are going, so it could equally see a Tory protest vote as a LD one if it is a No Deal Brexit
No, Mr HY. The Tories are in favour of not having any deal at all, rather than make the slightest concession.. Whatever happens they are losers - and so are the rest of us! How can the Conservatives be so stupid?
Can I just correct you there.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
I am a Conservative Member too, No Deal crashes the economy and risks Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. I will never accept that
Just because something is unpopular doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Especially in the context of an intransigent EU trying to demand the break up of our country.
It is No Deal that will break up the country with indyref2 in Scotland and a majority in NI for a United Ireland
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
No YOU clearly don't understand what is going on. There is NO majority in Parliament for No Deal, there is a majority in Parliament for SM and CU.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop for NI to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
Quite so, hence why this fishing exercise of hardcore Australian extremists like Archer is a worthwhile venture.
I depart from your comments as soon as I read no 1
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
OK, on No 1 that is my view; if I am wrong on that my analysis ceases to be valid. I am sure the backstop will apply to all possible trade outcomes. I agree that we don't know what the backstop will be. If May manages to get a major backdown from the EU then it is a new scenario obviously.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
Most people on here seem to think May will keep folding.
But is that right? If she thinks that if she folds there is no way such a deal will get through the Commons then surely folding is the worst option and the only sensible course is to not fold and see what happens then.
The point is that 'no deal' is what happens if nobody can take a positive decision to do something different.
Nobody is capable of agreeing and alternative, therefore No Deal it is.
It would be irrelevant as the Commons would have voted for the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union and in those circumstances a majority of the Commons would vote for a permanent SM and CU backstop for NI (which would apply until any technical solution could be found enabling CETA) as it had voted for exactly the same terms of Brexit for the whole UK. There would be no NI split
You clearly don't want to understand what is going on:
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances. 2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA. 3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
At least she's thinking of the national good unlike the Tory hardline nutters
The hardcore Brexiteers like Archer are, day by day, ideologically isolating themselves. Labour moderates should back May on temporary but indefinite UK wide CU+SM and remove their power completely.
That backstop is not available. The EU will not agree it. They will agree only CU+SM for NI, and CU only for GB with a hard regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
Why?
As Archer has said so. In reality the whole UK could stay in the single market and customs union.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed
No we won't. We automatically exit on 29 March 2019.
It will take a deal for us to remain.
Only 40 to 45% of voters back No Deal, No Deal ends the 52% Brexit majority in the UK. The only way to save Brexit then would be SM plus CU otherwise it will be EUref2 before March and Remain or a Corbyn minority government after a general election and SM and CU or EUref2 anyway (Soubry, Grieve etc will of course vote with the opposition for a general election if No Deal if the government does not allow EUref2)
Irrelevant.
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
May has said she will pass the Brexit decision to Parliament if no agreement with the EU in November
Comments
Though if a technical solution is found to the Irish border we could eventually get CETA for the whole UK
But the EU have no intention whatsoever of agreeing to this. This is a power play, not about solving a problem.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/john-major-speech-full-ex-13427251
A technical solution can be found as soon as both parties want to find a technical solution. If the EU accepted a technical solution was the right move they could work on it and it would be possible. If the EU believe their solution is better they have zero reason to work on it and it can never be found.
It's not as if a technical solution is something that actually exists in the wild and is waiting for someone to discover it. It is an acceptable political compromise that is held up by politics, nothing more, nothing less.
The point however is that CU membership as an overall outcome is not actually available.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander, just as we need to respect the integrity of the EU, they should respect the integrity of the UK. They need to find a solution that accords with OUR legal framework too.
Trump is such a tool! You would have to be low IQ, ignorant and in-bred moron to vote for him. Sadly there are loads of such people in the USA.
If the UK was in a CU AND followed EU regulations as well, then that is cherry picking - being in the SM by the backdoor. This would mean the four freedoms. That is why Barnier is insisting on the regulatory border in the Irish Sea even if it accepts an all UK backstop.
I didn't ask who would back SM+CU etc etc. I asked who would vote to approve the single issue of the UK accepting a permanent, NI-only backstop?
Because the backstop will apply regardless of any trade deal or outcome.
try again.
1: Total abject surrender. EU refuses to budge an inch, May gives away everything.
2: May is deposed and replaced by an actual Brexiteer who means it when they say no deal is better than a bad deal.
In scenario 1 the EU gets everything they want.
In scenario 2 the EU has a choice. They can either negotiate in good faith and budge because they want a deal, or they can continue to not negotiate and get no deal.
The only scenario where the UK isn't the only one folding is scenario 2. May has no more moves to make than surrender or be replaced.
It does seem to be very unrealistic
I see the two actual Brexiteers, Boris and JRM are falling like a stone in popular appeal
It will take a deal for us to remain.
It is also no secret May has been planning for a pre Christmas general election if needed.
However Mrs May can attempt reinvention and try to lead option2 (and unfortunately many will buy it for want of anybody demonstrably better in the available timescale).
see Nick Timothy..
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7501794/this-is-your-brexit-boudicca-moment-theresa-its-time-to-say-on-your-way-barnier-like-up-yours-delors/
Unless the EU believe we have a spine they have zero reason to move. They can just stand still run down the clock and wait for us to run to nurse like a scared child.
We need our own Trump ASAP.. and the way the culture war is being raged at the moment one will emerge soon.
1.There will be ONE vote that the HoC will make - on the withdrawal agreement. That will require the backstop in ALL circumstances.
2. The WA is NOT linked to the possible trade agreement. Your SM+CU cannot legally be agreed in the WA.
3. In fact, it cannot legally be agreed by Barnier at all - it would be a mixed competency deal that has to go through the whole ratification process in the EU. While this happens, the backstop will remain for NI.
No matter how many times you muddy the waters, the fact is that the HoC will be required to vote for a permanent, NI only backstop now and any trade arrangement will not be voted on for years. MPs will never vote for this. When May said in March that 'it is something that no UK PM could ever agree' the whole HoC cheered.
And that is why the Leavers are just sitting back and letting May dig deeper and deeper.
This conservative member is most definately not in favour of a hard brexit and that is shared by two thirds of conservative mps.
It will be TM deal or as TM said yesterday she will open it to the HOC to decide
There isn't a referendum booked and the sands of time mean we will be gone before the next election. What the polls say is irrelevant unless Parliament acts and Parliament can't really act unilaterally without bringing the government down - it can block what the government wants to do but can't initiate a deal by itself.
Neither this party member.
The Speaker’s stance on the EU vote appears to be saving his job, despite verdict that allegations against him were concealed"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/labour-mps-back-bully-bercow-because-of-brexit-3mc5qvhh8
It will be Barnier's deal or no deal. TM has zero strength and zero power. She either folds completely to Barnier or she doesn't get a deal.
But if May says 'No Deal' because of the backstop, would you agree that the only option other than No Deal is cancelling Brexit altogether? Do you actually think May will recommend that after everything she has said?
We are simply not ready.
We do not know the detail of the backstop - that is still part of negotiation
And while there will be a vote on the WDA to think that is the end of other votes, including emergency legislation with a second referendum is naive.
Never underestimate the power of the HOC especially as it is heavily populated with remain supporters
The path to a second referendum is a murky one, but I'm sure this is where Olly Robbins and the EU want us to go, and the stories in the paper, and John Major intervening, have the air of the first shots of the Reverse Brexit campaign being fired.
This is of course only a hunch.
If they could effectively sack her I don't think they'd hesitate to implement a different policy which they believe is in the national Interest.
We can't 'delay Article 50.' We can ask the EU to extend the deadline. They have said they won't do that without the prospect of a general election or another referendum.
No trade deal is going to be agreed as part of this process - nobody is pretending about this any more. ALL that MPs will get to vote on is the withdrawal agreement and the backstop. They will have to agree a permanent backstop without having any agreed trade outcome. It just won't happen. And for that reason, I don't think May will even bother if she can't get the EU to back down.
So if you want to know what the detail of the backstop is you need to look at what the EU have published. That's it.
If you believe any of that, may I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?
I did follow what Barnier and EU said, I just don’t believe they can’t move from it.
CU+the Barnier bit you mention fudged = deal Brit and EU sign, British Parliament and all Parliaments stamp, and for good measure UK has a 1975 do you back this deal ref 21st March to get 60% of public endorsing it too.
It’s not the chaos of no deal, it’s the antagonistic and competitive relationship both parties end up in that is bigger threat than any of the details currently pokerfaced over.
Oh. And the Irish. EU member who suffer greatly from no deal, so will start to modify their position, any second now
The negotiations are fictitious. The EU may concede window dressing but they think we are impotent and will give them everything they want. And we (Robbins and May) think we are impotent and are desperate for a deal. So look at what the EU are proposing that is the deal.
May isn't brave enough to say no deal.
The HOC isn't brave enough to say no deal.
The only alternative is that someone becomes brave enough and May is deposed.
Parliament will vote for a SM and CU backstop for NI to get the Withdrawal Agreement, it will also commit the whole UK to stay in the single market and customs union through the transition period and beyond given a FTA can only be agreed anyway if a technical solution is found to the Irish border.
Parliament will not vote for No Deal and to crash the economy and risk Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving the UK. Beyond the ERG and DUP and a handful of Labour Leave MPs like Hoey there are barely any MPs who will really accept No Deal. Not only that a comfortable majority of voters oppose No Deal too.
That is why the harder Brexiteers push the more they may not only guarantee BINO but ultimately Remain too and kill off Brexit
The elite have been driven totally bonkers by Brexit!
They will agree to CU+SM which is Brexit In Name Only, but will demand full implementation of the four freedoms (an SM rule) and full fiscal contributions without a rebate (also an SM rule).
BINO is all the problems of Remain, none of the benefits of Leave, plus we lose our MEPs, our votes in Council, our few remaining vetoes and is just an absurd taxation without representation worst case scenario.
But ultimately, they won't budge, because they believe firmly in the integrity of their project as they define it ahead of real life, common sense, economic reality and democratic processes. It's stupid, short-sighted and likely to end in disaster for everyone, us first and them a little later. But it is entirely typical of a block where being a third-rate drunk with a track record of Fascistic behaviour and a deep love of helping big business avoid tax is considered de rigeur for its highest office.
So that is why I have been predicting this mess all the way through.
But is that right? If she thinks that if she folds there is no way such a deal will get through the Commons then surely folding is the worst option and the only sensible course is to not fold and see what happens then.
This was labelled "Project Fear" and we were told that the EU would be gagging to sign whatever we offered.
That interpretation by "Leave" should be labelled "Project Fantasy"
I think they would seize gratefully on an offer to withdraw notice under A50. After all, what could more firmly prove their mantra of 'ever closer union' and their insistence that processes trump democracy?
But not to extend it and certainly not beyond six months. If May could have got it extended for five years she would have achieved what Chequers was essentially trying to do, and in case you hadn't noticed, that has been rejected.
Quite so, hence why this fishing exercise of hardcore Australian extremists like Archer is a worthwhile venture.
Based on what we know now, my view is that the only alternative to No Deal will be to abandon Brexit. I don't see that MPs have the guts to do this themselves. Too many would lose their seats.
So yes, you are looking at a referendum vote. The problem is that the HoC will not be able to agree the question, the Cabinet will be divided, the Tory party would split uncontrollably and Leave will boycott it anyway. A VONC in May would be a certainty, and then you have 150+ Tories who supported Leave to worry about. All this even assuming the DUP don't consider that they would be better off forcing an election. It will be absolute chaos.
I am not saying it cannot happen; I am saying that given how easy it will be to blame the EU for the breakdown (the NI backstop is after all totally unreasonable) the path of least resistance will be for the Government to blame the EU and proceed with no deal.
Nobody is capable of agreeing and alternative, therefore No Deal it is.
It is only ERG opposition to the SM that prevented it for GB and Hannanite opposition to the CU that prevented that for GB. We would stay in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway once the backstop is agreed