Clearly someone wasn't watching when his speech was ignored by the European bigshots last week. Pretty humiliating.
Barnier has stuck to the EU27's negotiating line from the start. Part of why he's proven to be such a formidable opponent is that every attempt by the Brexit Buccaneers to drive a rizla between him and the EU27 has totally failed.
Remarkably, it turns out the EU27 are actually in continuous communication with both the Commission and their chief negotiator.
Amazing thought, I know. People actually letting each other know what the fuck is going on.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
Barnier has ruled himself out from even standing.
He ruled it out on the basis that he wants to see the Brexit negotiations through. If Brexit were aborted he might suddenly become available.
"Lidington says he will agree and accept on behalf of the government that the analysis provided by the government after the withdrawal agreement is ready will include a legal analysis."
"Lidington says he will agree and accept on behalf of the government that the analysis provided by the government after the withdrawal agreement is ready will include a legal analysis."
Clearly someone wasn't watching when his speech was ignored by the European bigshots last week. Pretty humiliating.
Barnier has stuck to the EU27's negotiating line from the start. Part of why he's proven to be such a formidable opponent is that every attempt by the Brexit Buccaneers to drive a rizla between him and the EU27 has totally failed.
Remarkably, it turns out the EU27 are actually in continuous communication with both the Commission and their chief negotiator.
Amazing thought, I know. People actually letting each other know what the fuck is going on.
That would require May breaking the habit of a lifetime (and knowing what the fuck was going on in the first place).
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
Barnier has ruled himself out from even standing.
He ruled it out on the basis that he wants to see the Brexit negotiations through. If Brexit were aborted he might suddenly become available.
Maybe but the political party he is a member of has chosen Manfred Weber as their candidate. The rumour is Barnier wants to be Head of the EU External Action Service or commonly known as the ignored.
We are governed by morons. Some of it is totally unforgivable IMO.
I don't think that Fintan O'Toole understands the British.
That's as maybe, but the stuff Brady said about NI and the stuff Raab said about Dover is mind boggling stupidity and unforgivable.
Raab's comment was just politically stupid. I bet most people wouldn't be able to accurately guess how much UK-continent trade comes through Dover - though saying what he did, how he did, left himself open to ridicule. Brady's statement, by contrast, was indefensible on any level.
Most people might not know how much trade goes through Dover but I bet they know it is "lots". Surely Raab must have wondered why for the past two years there have been so many allusions to turning Kent into a lorry park.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
Barnier has ruled himself out from even standing.
He ruled it out on the basis that he wants to see the Brexit negotiations through. If Brexit were aborted he might suddenly become available.
Maybe but the political party he is a member of has chosen Manfred Weber as their candidate. The rumour is Barnier wants to be Head of the EU External Action Service or commonly known as the ignored.
Coming soon to BBC2
Michel Fury's External Action
Michel 'Fury' Barnier gets parachuted in behind enemy lines with a flintlock pistol in one hand, and a ring binder in the other, and negotiates the enemy into brutal humiliation.
Starring Jason Statham as Michel Fury Scarlett Johansson as sexy femme fatal Tessie May
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
As an aside, badgers are a prime reason hedgehogs are struggling. The former have no natural predators and outcompete the latter for food (and, very occasionally, just eat hedgehogs). People bemoan the declining hedgehog numbers but whine loudly if any action to control badger numbers is raised.
There is a wider debate we ought to have about stewardship of the natural world. Are we aiming to preserve the status quo in aspic? Should we let species go extinct if it's for natural reasons? When should we reintroduce species and when shouldn't we?
Some have proposed wolf or lynx reintroductions to the UK in order to control deer numbers. That's likely a good idea but I pity the politicians, because at some point someone will undoubtedly suffer a bite or suchlike (even if it's their own damned fault) and the politician who gave the nod will get it in the neck.
Indeed. The re-introduction, or otherwise, of the Lynx is a surprisingly hot topic in these parts. It hasn't happened so far. Hence, a deer cull is planned. Venison will be cheap and plentiful mind.
I’ve always thought venison was a little dear.
(That’s a joke that only works if you say it out loud)
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Michael Moore interviews Ojeda in his new movie. Clearly Mike thinks he's the kind of guy who could subvert Trump. I'd say he's too fringe - the kind of guy who'd make a good state governor perhaps but too much the opposite of the likes of Bernie Sanders to command wide support. But having watched the trajectory of Trump, I suppose nothing is impossible.
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Her methods leave a lot to be desired, I agree. You can choose to focus on her mistakes or you can note the basic truth which is that there is something deeply rotten going on here that she is right to keep gnawing away at. The second is a lot more important than the first.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
Old puce puss not have the balls to apologise himself?
More like he feels no need to - but the BBC does.
I wouldn't apologise if I was him. Crazy Cat Lady sums up the way she appears to the public. 50 year old woman tweeting throughout the night and starting her own tweets with "BOOM!", "OMG!" and "WHAT A SCOOP". She clearly needs help.
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Her methods leave a lot to be desired, I agree. You can choose to focus on her mistakes or you can note the basic truth which is that there is something deeply rotten going on here that she is right to keep gnawing away at. The second is a lot more important than the first.
The ends justify the means? An interesting approach for a profession where the central tenant is the truth.
13: 19 Starmer says Labour accepts the convention that in normal circumstances government legal advice should not be published.
But he says there are four reasons why that does not apply in this case.
First, this situation is exceptional, he says. He says there is precedent for publishing legal advice in exceptional circumstances.
Second, he says this is general legal advice.
Third, he says the way legal privilege applies to advice from government law officers is different from the way it applies to advice from other lawyers.
And, fourth, he says the government should not be allowed to show its legal advice selectively to just some MPs.
That's a feeble set of reasons for not following the normal convention. All four arguments could be said to apply to almost any example.
I don’t even like Macron, but my word his speech this weekend and talk of a European Army has really got under Trump’s skin. Then again, the tweets are also proof of what a joke Macron’s earlier attempts to cuddle up with Trump were.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
I don't think he is. Indeed some talk of Merkel
You'd think after pushing two decades at the top of European politics she deserves a rest.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I don’t even like Macron, but my word his speech this weekend and talk of a European Army has really got under Trump’s skin. Then again, the tweets are also proof of what a joke Macron’s earlier attempts to cuddle up with Trump were.
Gee, I wonder how the EU got the impression the US has become an unreliable ally..?
Old puce puss not have the balls to apologise himself?
More like he feels no need to - but the BBC does.
I wouldn't apologise if I was him. Crazy Cat Lady sums up the way she appears to the public. 50 year old woman tweeting throughout the night and starting her own tweets with "BOOM!", "OMG!" and "WHAT A SCOOP". She clearly needs help.
Anyone ever seen Crazy Cat Lady and Plato in the same room?
Old puce puss not have the balls to apologise himself?
More like he feels no need to - but the BBC does.
I wouldn't apologise if I was him. Crazy Cat Lady sums up the way she appears to the public. 50 year old woman tweeting throughout the night and starting her own tweets with "BOOM!", "OMG!" and "WHAT A SCOOP". She clearly needs help.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
Old puce puss not have the balls to apologise himself?
More like he feels no need to - but the BBC does.
I wouldn't apologise if I was him. Crazy Cat Lady sums up the way she appears to the public. 50 year old woman tweeting throughout the night and starting her own tweets with "BOOM!", "OMG!" and "WHAT A SCOOP". She clearly needs help.
Not as much as Neil does for sure.
they make quite the pair to be honest, so sure of their own correctness but without malice
I don’t even like Macron, but my word his speech this weekend and talk of a European Army has really got under Trump’s skin. Then again, the tweets are also proof of what a joke Macron’s earlier attempts to cuddle up with Trump were.
Look at Trump's feed and it looks like he has just been lobbied by California -- American wine, as well as aid for California, just a few days after he was lambasting that state. I don't think this is about Macron or France.
Is it too late to ask Barnier, Merkel and Macron if we can just have the things they wouldn't let Cameron have, put it to a vote, and we'll stay put?
The EU27 has the UK bleeding on the ropes, semi-conscious and missing eight front teeth. You might expect the ref to end the bout, but you certainly wouldn't expect this to be the time for Barnier Fury to pull his punches.
For all the difficulties the UK is having we're in a far better position than Barnier or Macron are. The EU had their chance to keep us inside the club and they blew it.
Huh? Barnier is now nailed-on favourite to be the Parliament's candidate for the next commission president. The sheer brutal efficiency with which he has deflated decades of Tory pomposity with his shiny prick of truth has made him look an absolute beast.
I don't think he is. Indeed some talk of Merkel
You'd think after pushing two decades at the top of European politics she deserves a rest.
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Her methods leave a lot to be desired, I agree. You can choose to focus on her mistakes or you can note the basic truth which is that there is something deeply rotten going on here that she is right to keep gnawing away at. The second is a lot more important than the first.
The ends justify the means? An interesting approach for a profession where the central tenant is the truth.
Er you have that exactly arse about face. Leavers, such as yourself, throw up the peripheral errors in Carole Cadwalladr's work as chaff to distract from the fundamental truth. Why? Because they are desperate that the chicanery she is looking into goes unexamined. A commitment to truth would look to seeing those matters properly investigated.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
True. It is a big victory for her given the EU's initial reaction. But it was the only compromise that would work on several levels the only question being would the EU wear it. That has now been answered - yes, for the moment.
Not to appreciate that it is the only game in town is as you say the big challenge. Why I have to tell you that even some here on PB don't understand it.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
We are governed by morons. Some of it is totally unforgivable IMO.
I don't think that Fintan O'Toole understands the British.
That's as maybe, but the stuff Brady said about NI and the stuff Raab said about Dover is mind boggling stupidity and unforgivable.
Raab's comment was just politically stupid. I bet most people wouldn't be able to accurately guess how much UK-continent trade comes through Dover - though saying what he did, how he did, left himself open to ridicule. Brady's statement, by contrast, was indefensible on any level.
I think we mean Bradley here – as in Karen – don't we?
Graham Brady has said the square root of sod all, unless it is NFL quarterback Tom Brady we are talking about, the NFL quarterback to whom @Pulpstar is alluding.
Yes. My fingers havebn't been obeying my mind all day.
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Her methods leave a lot to be desired, I agree. You can choose to focus on her mistakes or you can note the basic truth which is that there is something deeply rotten going on here that she is right to keep gnawing away at. The second is a lot more important than the first.
The ends justify the means? An interesting approach for a profession where the central tenant is the truth.
Er you have that exactly arse about face. Leavers, such as yourself, throw up the peripheral errors in Carole Cadwalladr's work as chaff to distract from the fundamental truth. Why? Because they are desperate that the chicanery she is looking into goes unexamined. A commitment to truth would look to seeing those matters properly investigated.
Go on then, tell us what the truth is, I've lost count of all the allegations and retractions made by codswallop.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
Carole knows a thing or two about corrections and clarifications.
She's been a lot more right than wrong. At the core of what she has been investigating there is something deeply fishy going on. If Andrew Neil were a journalist rather than a Leave advocate he would have been looking into this stuff himself instead of insulting those who are.
If she were a proper journalist rather than someone pushing a partisan agenda, she'd have checked her facts properly before publishing.
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
Her methods leave a lot to be desired, I agree. You can choose to focus on her mistakes or you can note the basic truth which is that there is something deeply rotten going on here that she is right to keep gnawing away at. The second is a lot more important than the first.
The ends justify the means? An interesting approach for a profession where the central tenant is the truth.
Er you have that exactly arse about face. Leavers, such as yourself, throw up the peripheral errors in Carole Cadwalladr's work as chaff to distract from the fundamental truth. Why? Because they are desperate that the chicanery she is looking into goes unexamined. A commitment to truth would look to seeing those matters properly investigated.
Go on then, tell us what the truth is, I've lost count of all the allegations and retractions made by codswallop.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
True. It is a big victory for her given the EU's initial reaction. But it was the only compromise that would work on several levels the only question being would the EU wear it. That has now been answered - yes, for the moment.
Not to appreciate that it is the only game in town is as you say the big challenge. Why I have to tell you that even some here on PB don't understand it.
Ironically, the very fact that all sides rejected Chequers was what gives it a chance. No-one likes it (I suspect that May doesn't much like it, though what her actual views are on Brexit are anyone's guess); the question is whether enough people can tolerate it - or whatever it might be rebadged as.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No. On that they won't back down. What are the mechanics of a back down? Can't happen.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
You are, you know. You persist in enduring in a world where everyone is reasonable, rational and acting in good faith.
Me, I'm an implacable cynic. But I do agree with you: May has been trying so very hard to do what she believes is for the best. She's just been astonishingly terrible at convincing anyone else.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
That was my take. If there's a broad-brush deal, why is it needed?
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No. On that they won't back down. What are the mechanics of a back down? Can't happen.
I have more faith in the ingenuity of Eurocrats than you do.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No. On that they won't back down. What are the mechanics of a back down? Can't happen.
I have more faith in the ingenuity of Eurocrats than you do.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
True. It is a big victory for her given the EU's initial reaction. But it was the only compromise that would work on several levels the only question being would the EU wear it. That has now been answered - yes, for the moment.
Not to appreciate that it is the only game in town is as you say the big challenge. Why I have to tell you that even some here on PB don't understand it.
Ironically, the very fact that all sides rejected Chequers was what gives it a chance. No-one likes it (I suspect that May doesn't much like it, though what her actual views are on Brexit are anyone's guess); the question is whether enough people can tolerate it - or whatever it might be rebadged as.
It is the iteration of what's left once people have indulged themselves in promoting their six impossible things before breakfast.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
this is visa waiver and it is 100% likely to happen either way
£6.50 fantastic
Last week there were some reports the visa would be £52 each to visit the EU.
They can get lost, Now we have a tourist tax in Majorca, so I won't be going back as they doubled it recently. AND they want £15 quid to lie on a lounger.. PER DAY..
There are lots of other places to visit outside the EU. The EU can go to hell.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
That was my take. If there's a broad-brush deal, why is it needed?
I understand your perspective Mark but in this case your intuition is mistaken.
Ending freedom of movement at the end of the transition is a government commitment. Of course if there is no transition then that gets advanced to the 30 March but as the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out last month, we can't end FoM on that timeframe.
Ergo, with or without a long term future partnership, either a VISA or VISA-waiver scheme will be needed. Javid set the tone of this over the summer in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
this is visa waiver and it is 100% likely to happen either way
£6.50 fantastic
Last week there were some reports the visa would be £52 each to visit the EU.
They can get lost, Now we have a tourist tax in Majorca, so I won't be going back as they doubled it recently. AND they want £15 quid to lie on a lounger.. PER DAY..
There are lots of other places to visit outside the EU. The EU can go to hell.
I am 99% certain the fee will be €7 (for say two weeks in Majorca)
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No, May agreed to the backstop back in December. Now she is trying to wriggle out of it and the EU sees that as bad faith, which it is. Anyway, it has the UK over a barrel, as J Johnson succinctlay put it, we now have a choice between vassalage and chaos, the EU has achieved its negotiating objectives and I guess it is building up popcorn supplies to sustain it as it watches our political agonies over the next few weeks.
Government is abstaining on Labour's humble address, meaning it should carry unopposed.
TBH, a three line whip for abstention is mildly better than losing the vote at the hands of the ERG and DUP, but once again it really demonstrates who is holding the whip hand in this parliament, and it's not May.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No, May agreed to the backstop back in December. Now she is trying to wriggle out of it and the EU sees that as bad faith, which it is. Anyway, it has the UK over a barrel, as J Johnson succinctlay put it, we now have a choice between vassalage and chaos, the EU has achieved its negotiating objectives and I guess it is building up popcorn supplies to sustain it as it watches our political agonies over the next few weeks.
I still can’t find where in the December text it says it applies to NI only.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
That was my take. If there's a broad-brush deal, why is it needed?
I understand your perspective Mark but in this case your intuition is mistaken.
Ending freedom of movement at the end of the transition is a government commitment. Of course if there is no transition then that gets advanced to the 30 March but as the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out last month, we can't end FoM on that timeframe.
Ergo, with or without a long term future partnership, either a VISA or VISA-waiver scheme will be needed. Javid set the tone of this over the summer in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Northern Irish citizens are going to be able to avoid this charge aren't they
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No, May agreed to the backstop back in December. Now she is trying to wriggle out of it and the EU sees that as bad faith, which it is. Anyway, it has the UK over a barrel, as J Johnson succinctlay put it, we now have a choice between vassalage and chaos, the EU has achieved its negotiating objectives and I guess it is building up popcorn supplies to sustain it as it watches our political agonies over the next few weeks.
As Nigel Dodds pointed out in the debate today, paragaph 50 of the December agreement said there should be no new regulatory barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without the approval of the Northern Ireland assembly. I appreciate that for some reason you want to pretend that the UK is dreadful and the EU27 is perfect, but in this particular matter it seems to be the EU who have rowed back on what they committed to.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No, May agreed to the backstop back in December. Now she is trying to wriggle out of it and the EU sees that as bad faith, which it is. Anyway, it has the UK over a barrel, as J Johnson succinctlay put it, we now have a choice between vassalage and chaos, the EU has achieved its negotiating objectives and I guess it is building up popcorn supplies to sustain it as it watches our political agonies over the next few weeks.
As Nigel Dodds pointed out in the debate today, paragaph 50 of the December agreement said there should be no new regulatory barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without the approval of the Northern Ireland assembly. I appreciate that for some reason you want to pretend that the UK is dreadful and the EU27 is perfect, but in this particular matter it seems to be the EU who have rowed back on what they committed to.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
That was my take. If there's a broad-brush deal, why is it needed?
I understand your perspective Mark but in this case your intuition is mistaken.
Ending freedom of movement at the end of the transition is a government commitment. Of course if there is no transition then that gets advanced to the 30 March but as the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out last month, we can't end FoM on that timeframe.
Ergo, with or without a long term future partnership, either a VISA or VISA-waiver scheme will be needed. Javid set the tone of this over the summer in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Northern Irish citizens are going to be able to avoid this charge aren't they
I would hope the U.K. didn’t charge for any visa waiver, and see if the EU follows suit.
Still smells like No Deal then....just trying not to kill the EU's tourist trade from the UK?
Why do you see no deal in this sensible statement
Because this is just one of hundreds, possibly thousands, of makeshift bilateral legislation, regulations, agreements and conventions that a No Deal scenario will bring about.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
That was my take. If there's a broad-brush deal, why is it needed?
I understand your perspective Mark but in this case your intuition is mistaken.
Ending freedom of movement at the end of the transition is a government commitment. Of course if there is no transition then that gets advanced to the 30 March but as the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out last month, we can't end FoM on that timeframe.
Ergo, with or without a long term future partnership, either a VISA or VISA-waiver scheme will be needed. Javid set the tone of this over the summer in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Northern Irish citizens are going to be able to avoid this charge aren't they
Holders of Irish passports will not require either a Visa or Visa-waiver.
Equally no Visa or Visa-waiver will be required to cross the border.
However British citizens should still be asked to provide a Visa or Visa waiver even if they cross the border and fly from Dublin onwards to Majorca.
Of all the problems facing the government this is not that difficult. Of course there may be arguments around the edges, or if that fee goes up...!
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
The deal is looking more and more like Chequers which will be a huge concession from the EU.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
As I've been saying for a while, something roughly similar to Chequers is the only deal which can actually work. For all her many faults, Theresa May's analysis of the way through the mess has been pretty good. Where she has been lacking is in carrying people with her so that they reach the same conclusion, and that failure may still kibosh the whole thing.
I mean, Chequers didn't solve the backstop issue at all. May just decided to ignore it, kick the can down the road, and pray for the best. And here we still are, still kicking, still praying.
The backstop can be solved in one way and one way only: by the EU backing off. I get the impression (it can't be more than that, none of us really know what is being said in the smoke-free rooms at 2am) that the EU have now actually realised this and are trying to find some fudge so they can back down without losing face. But maybe I'm too much of an optimist!
No, May agreed to the backstop back in December. Now she is trying to wriggle out of it and the EU sees that as bad faith, which it is. Anyway, it has the UK over a barrel, as J Johnson succinctlay put it, we now have a choice between vassalage and chaos, the EU has achieved its negotiating objectives and I guess it is building up popcorn supplies to sustain it as it watches our political agonies over the next few weeks.
As Nigel Dodds pointed out in the debate today, paragaph 50 of the December agreement said there should be no new regulatory barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without the approval of the Northern Ireland assembly. I appreciate that for some reason you want to pretend that the UK is dreadful and the EU27 is perfect, but in this particular matter it seems to be the EU who have rowed back on what they committed to.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and on the other hand that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
What happens next?
Presumably Her Majesty will treat her subjects' humble address with the disdain it deserves.
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
What happens next?
... the motion passes?
You're a hecking genius.
This is a humble address. It's directed not at the government, but at Her Majesty, requesting Her to command Her government to release the advice.
I bet HM is furious at being dragged into politics and will want this to Go Away, fast and will be letting May know in no uncertain terms of Her displeasure in allowing this state of affairs to come about.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Rather it is the future relationship unless a deal is agreed.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Indeed, it's a complete nonsense, and has simply held up progress on the main issues to be discussed. The sooner it's put in the bin wrapped in fudge the better.
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
What happens next?
Presumably Her Majesty will treat her subjects' humble address with the disdain it deserves.
Normally, you'd think a stern reminder from palace that She does not get involved in politics would be enough to prevent such impertinence from coming about.
Not in these perilous times, it seems. If I were to hazard a guess, the Palace will say nothing publicly but privately will be furiously castigating May and Corbyn into finding a way to make this go away.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Indeed, it's a complete nonsense, and has simply held up progress on the main issues to be discussed. The sooner it's put in the bin wrapped in fudge the better.
It's completely logical and there will not be any compromise on it.
Labour says it won't withdraw the humble address. Government + ERG + DUP are all abstaining, so there will be a vote and will carry either unanimously or nearly so.
What happens next?
Presumably Her Majesty will treat her subjects' humble address with the disdain it deserves.
Normally, you'd think a stern reminder from palace that She does not get involved in politics would be enough to prevent such impertinence from coming about.
Not in these perilous times, it seems. If I were to hazard a guess, the Palace will say nothing publicly but privately will be furiously castigating May and Corbyn into finding a way to make this go away.
It will go away, because the government has agreed to publish a summary of the legal advice on the final agreement (assuming there is one), which meets the spirit of the motion. This is especially true because Keir Starmer acknowledged that Labour weren't actually seeking what the motion states they are seeking.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Indeed, it's a complete nonsense, and has simply held up progress on the main issues to be discussed. The sooner it's put in the bin wrapped in fudge the better.
It's completely logical and there will not be any compromise on it.
Well, there's already been a compromise. The EU has accepted the idea of a UK-wide backstop, *as long as* the government can accept it will last as long as needed to ensure a new trading arrangement is in place. That means no end date, and no ability for the UK to unilaterally withdraw.
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Indeed, it's a complete nonsense, and has simply held up progress on the main issues to be discussed. The sooner it's put in the bin wrapped in fudge the better.
It's completely logical and there will not be any compromise on it.
Then there's no deal and the EU (according to their own, admittedly dodgy, logic) will have to insist that the Irish Republic puts up a hard border.
Or, and massively more likely, they will back down. It's an absolutely stupid issue to crash the EU economies on, especially since doing so brings about the very eventuality they claim they are absolutely trying to avoid
So Belfast has a veto over Great Britain diverging from Northern Ireland. What does that have to do with the EU?
Nothing, but for some reason they maintain that on the one hand the Withdrawal Agreement is completely separate from an agreement on the future relationship, and that the Withdrawal Agreement has to have a legally-binding commitment as to the future relationship on this point. Search me, I don't understand their logic either.
The backstop is not part of the future relationship because by definition it will be superseded by the future relationship. It's an insurance policy and a constraint on the future relationship.
Indeed, it's a complete nonsense, and has simply held up progress on the main issues to be discussed. The sooner it's put in the bin wrapped in fudge the better.
It's completely logical and there will not be any compromise on it.
No. Both sides have made too much of this for compromise to be possible. The weaker party will have to give way.
Comments
Remarkably, it turns out the EU27 are actually in continuous communication with both the Commission and their chief negotiator.
Amazing thought, I know. People actually letting each other know what the fuck is going on.
I would not worry about it. Something will turn up and someone will agree to something that will deliver a glorious Brexit.
Leavers have assured us of this many, many times. They have until tomorrow to deliver.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/a-brexit-deal-is-tantalisingly-close-as-long-as-the-eu-completely-reverses-its-position-overnight-by-theresa-may-20181113179347
Michel Fury's External Action
Michel 'Fury' Barnier gets parachuted in behind enemy lines with a flintlock pistol in one hand, and a ring binder in the other, and negotiates the enemy into brutal humiliation.
Starring Jason Statham as Michel Fury
Scarlett Johansson as sexy femme fatal Tessie May
Having said that, Andrew Neil's tweet is more than 'inappropriate', it's completely unacceptable: it's childish, rude, silly and hurtful.
But a bit of perspective here: we are talking about Arron Banks and Andrew Neill here.
It's not like she's been attacked by anyone who's taken seriously. Or even knows how to insult people properly.
No wonder both sides are eager to find ways to end it.
£6.50 fantastic
Not to appreciate that it is the only game in town is as you say the big challenge. Why I have to tell you that even some here on PB don't understand it.
This looks a lot like, shall we say, the first of many bits of No Deal paraphernalia.
Visas are amounts like £52, Visa waivers are amounts like £6.50.
For example US citizens visiting the EU pay €7 under the ETIAS scheme.
Me, I'm an implacable cynic. But I do agree with you: May has been trying so very hard to do what she believes is for the best. She's just been astonishingly terrible at convincing anyone else.
There are lots of other places to visit outside the EU. The EU can go to hell.
Ending freedom of movement at the end of the transition is a government commitment. Of course if there is no transition then that gets advanced to the 30 March but as the Migration Advisory Committee pointed out last month, we can't end FoM on that timeframe.
Ergo, with or without a long term future partnership, either a VISA or VISA-waiver scheme will be needed. Javid set the tone of this over the summer in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
https://order-order.com/2018/11/13/andrew-neil-get-last-night/
TBH, a three line whip for abstention is mildly better than losing the vote at the hands of the ERG and DUP, but once again it really demonstrates who is holding the whip hand in this parliament, and it's not May.
Equally no Visa or Visa-waiver will be required to cross the border.
However British citizens should still be asked to provide a Visa or Visa waiver even if they cross the border and fly from Dublin onwards to Majorca.
Of all the problems facing the government this is not that difficult. Of course there may be arguments around the edges, or if that fee goes up...!
What happens next?
This is a humble address. It's directed not at the government, but at Her Majesty, requesting Her to command Her government to release the advice.
I bet HM is furious at being dragged into politics and will want this to Go Away, fast and will be letting May know in no uncertain terms of Her displeasure in allowing this state of affairs to come about.
So how does May respond?
Not in these perilous times, it seems. If I were to hazard a guess, the Palace will say nothing publicly but privately will be furiously castigating May and Corbyn into finding a way to make this go away.
Or, and massively more likely, they will back down. It's an absolutely stupid issue to crash the EU economies on, especially since doing so brings about the very eventuality they claim they are absolutely trying to avoid