Politically this is simple. The government have negotiated a deal with the EU which doesn't address most of the issues it was supposed to and does not command the confidence of Parliament. As "take back control" was the key slogan of the campaign, Parliament being the ultimate arbiter is EXACTLY what people voted for.
The government's deal will be rejected heavily and I expect the government to fall with it. At that point we will have no deal with the EU and no government with a majority for anything other than stopping the UK crashing out of the EU. And that could be a minority Labour government or minority Tory government, but it will be in minority. And the only way to stop us crashing out amongst the chaos will be to rescind Article 50 and remain.
"Ah but democracy" bleat the people who are disinterested in not just democracy but the workings of our democratic system. There was a referendum. The government spent several years trying to deliver the wishes of the referendum. The government fell doing so and the only remaining options are remain or national ruin. The new government is NOT BOUND by a referendum held by a previous government when the only way to "respect" it is to destroy the economy. No government is bound by its predecessor and the people demanding that it should be "for democracy" need to read what that word means in the political system of the United Kingdom.
Final point. How does this new minority government respect what the will of the people was? Look at the chart - migration and the NHS. The new government implements curbs on Free Movement by copying the Belgians - 3 months to find a job or we remove you. The new government strips the vast costs of the NHS market away and redirects the money from managing contracts into front line services. Done.
No MP should ever have voted to trigger A50 if they could not tolerate the UK leaving the EU. You get credit for voting against the legislation. You deserve none for voting for it with your fingers crossed, as it seems many of them did.
Still, if the Commons has now decided that the UK will not leave the EU, then your approach is the correct one. Tell the voters they were wrong, and then take the consequences at the next election.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
Because May is weaker than her fellow MPs. They're going to do what she should have done and reject this abomination.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
Over the past week, Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell have expressed the case for Brexit far more eloquently than people like Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
We shall decide brexit by World of Sport rules. Brexit to be decided in the ring. A bout between Jacob The Hammer Rees-Mogg and his opponent Kier the Human Cannonball Starmer. Two Falls, Two Submissions or a Knockout.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
Remember that needs a vote of the EU27, and every country has a veto.
We're just getting to the part of "Take Back Control" where the EU tell the British which government they can have if they want the Article 50 extension they need to avoid everything going to shit.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
I do not expect cake, no. But I can see the EU being amenable to at least three alternative deals:
1. Remain 2. Norway+ 3. A minimal no-deal GB, with NI remaining in the EU
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
Talking of Black Friday and makeup, there was one heck of a queue outside one of the perfume shops so perhaps some expensive new pong or other is in vogue (or in Vogue). Sorry I can't be more precise.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Could be as easy as revoking Article 50, if that's allowable. Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
I wonder if we had a referendum of remain but signing up to everything or leave crashing out with no deal what would the outcome be. I'm thinking leave.
We shall decide brexit by World of Sport rules. Brexit to be decided in the ring. A bout between Jacob The Hammer Rees-Mogg and his opponent Kier the Human Cannonball Starmer. Two Falls, Two Submissions or a Knockout.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Starmer moving on an A50 extension. I don't think the substance of this is new but the rhetoric is. If the dam breaks on the sanctity of the scheduled Brexit Day then Labour and the Tory New Dealers can unite.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
I wonder if we had a referendum of remain but signing up to everything or leave crashing out with no deal what would the outcome be. I'm thinking leave.
Depends if Michael Gove appears on TV claiming that if we leave with no deal we run out of clean water.
We shall decide brexit by World of Sport rules. Brexit to be decided in the ring. A bout between Jacob The Hammer Rees-Mogg and his opponent Kier the Human Cannonball Starmer. Two Falls, Two Submissions or a Knockout.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
It is the last thing the EU wants, they'll be preparing for it given the noises they've heard coming from the UK parliament though.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Agreed which is why I remain hopeful for a realistic compromise from this ludicrous backstop.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
I wonder if we had a referendum of remain but signing up to everything or leave crashing out with no deal what would the outcome be. I'm thinking leave.
Agree. As rehearsed on here many times, it would be a "who governs Britain" campaign and plenty of erstwhile Remainers would be very reluctant to sign up the the Euro, SSM/SRM, etc.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
While the consequences would not be so severe as WWI, there is the same universal belief that your opponents will back down if you only hold firm.
IMHO, the EU have gone as far as they will go, May has gone as far as she will go, and backing her deal is preferable to every available alternative.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Agreed which is why I remain hopeful for a realistic compromise from this ludicrous backstop.
The backstop is the compromise, the EU's startpoint had NI solely in an EU customs territory.
The critical issue is: does the EU think the backstop is worth risking commercial chaos and the loss of forty billion quid?
So far, yes they do. Even if it means they are chained to a very angry honey badger.
And wiser heads are unlikely to prevail.
I have confidence wise heads would prevail. So far they see no need to compromise. This is all playing out in accordance with Game Theory.
If they need to compromise only then will the truth come out. Until then they stay strong and as I said a heavy dose of Mandy Rice-Davies in all statements denying ability to compromise.
Parliament will need to come to a settled view on where to go next.
And practically, it needs to do that before Parliament breaks up for Festivus.
Unlikely. The break up for Christmas will provide the opportunity needed to renegotiate the sticking point (the backstop), find a face saving way for Varadkar to retreat after overreaching then reach a deal.in the New Year that is promptly rushed through to an almighty sigh of relief.
If Varadkar " overreached " why is everything he wanted now written into a draft international treaty which is UK Government policy ?
I don't believe that. I believe that Ireland will be Europe's Alaska to our Canada to the EU's USA. Separated by distance but part of the continents large union not the union they physically touch
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Outside the Brexit loonballs everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that no deal is the last thing they want, and I think most of them (incl. the Irish) mean it.
Agreed which is why I remain hopeful for a realistic compromise from this ludicrous backstop.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how supposedly patriotic we love Britain Brexiters are only now realising, Raab-like, how their country is actually constituted.
Mr. JohnL, it's possible for people to be right in some areas and wrong in others. PB's former poster Rod Crosby was praised by almost everyone for his excellent electoral foresight and castigated for his views on other matters.
The language: loonballs, swivel-eyed, head-bangers, crashing out, cliff edge etc is frankly overwrought. It does nothing to advance an argument, quite the contrary - it implies the writer has lost it.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Could be as easy as revoking Article 50, if that's allowable. Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
Are we not waiting on a court case to decide if that's possible? If so what is the latest in terms of when we can expect a judgement on that?
I wonder if we had a referendum of remain but signing up to everything or leave crashing out with no deal what would the outcome be. I'm thinking leave.
Depends if Michael Gove appears on TV claiming that if we leave with no deal we run out of clean water.
Apparently "experts" have told him that...
I'm confident we would be able to get the chemicals to clean the water supply regardless of how Brexit turns out.
I've tried I really have but I can't see a single reason not to vote May's deal down. It would be a huge national laxative. It would give us to pick on the myriad available non Came end states. May's deal via it's evil genius of delay is a recipe of a classic Freudian/Jungian break down. It's an act of national psychological repression which while it gets us through this stage just leads to morbidity.
The Backstop is a microcosm of the macrocosm. We only need it because we won't choose between Softest Brexit and losing Northern Ireland which are the two logical choices. If voting down May's deal means getting rid of May then that's an extra Christmas present. Unless you've a loyalty fetish to whoever leads the Conservative Party at any one moment ( and they are over represented on here ) I really can"t see why anyone on any side of the Brexit debate wants to support this Turkey.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
And remember the CJEU hearing on A50 revocability is tomorrow. I don't know how that will go and I'm well aware europhiles like me who helped crowd fund it may be disappointed. But at least we'll know. We'll have additional hard facts.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Could be as easy as revoking Article 50, if that's allowable. Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
Are we not waiting on a court case to decide if that's possible? If so what is the latest in terms of when we can expect a judgement on that?
The hearing is on 27th November, and the ruling should be very soon after.
Outside of the loonballs in 1914 everyone else is publicly stating very loudly that a World War is the last thing they want, and I think most of them mean it.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
I'd say that in 1914 there was actually quite a large collective will towards war, probably aided by the tragic idea it would all be over by Christmas. At least no one is currently expecting this to be over any time soon.
"ludicrous backstop" is the entire game, sweetheart.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how Brexiters are realising, Raab-like, how their country is constituted.
My solution would be we put in the future relationship agreement that there will be no hard border in Ireland and kick the can of how that will be achieved to the actual future relationship negotiations.
Too risky, and unworkable. Both sides would be tying their hands to a(n albeit) known unknown. Because if no agreement can be reached on the future trading relationship, then to have no hard border can't be guaranteed (if we go WTO, for example).
As we've noticed before, Brexit seems to have addled brains on all sides of the argument. The latest piece of addlement is the widely-held idea that we can avoid the backstop by going for a future relationship based on Norway/Turkey/Canada+/Canada-/WTO/ or Some scheme of great advantage, but no-one to know what it is.
All of which are no doubt ideas with their advantages, but totally useless for avoiding the backstop, because they are ideas for what the long-term future deal should be, which is not being negotiated in any detail at the moment, whereas the backstop is about what is in the withdrawal arrangement in return for a gentle landing rather than crashing into a field.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Could be as easy as revoking Article 50, if that's allowable. Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
Are we not waiting on a court case to decide if that's possible? If so what is the latest in terms of when we can expect a judgement on that?
The hearing is on 27th November, and the ruling should be very soon after.
Oh as soon as that?! I'm surprised this isn't getting more coverage to be honest. If the court decides a country can unilaterally revoke invocation of article 50, it would open up remaining on current terms (ie not having to trade schengen/rebate).
Is there any legal consensus about which way the court is likely to find?
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
As we've noticed before, Brexit seems to have addled the brains on all sides of the argument. The latest piece of addlement is the widely-held idea that we can avoid the backstop by going for a future relationship based on Norway/Turkey/Canada+/Canada-/WTO/ or Some scheme of great advantage, but no-one to know what it is.
All of which are no doubt ideas with their advantages, but totally useless for avoiding the backstop, because they are ideas for what the long-term future deal should be, which is not being negotiated in any detail at the moment, and the backstop is about what is in the withdrawal arrangement in return for a gentle landing rather than crashing into a field.
Hard and soft Brexit all have their merits and demerits, but they aren't going to get negotiated and ratified in four months.
As we've noticed before, Brexit seems to have addled the brains on all sides of the argument. The latest piece of addlement is the widely-held idea that we can avoid the backstop by going for a future relationship based on Norway/Turkey/Canada+/Canada-/WTO/ or Some scheme of great advantage, but no-one to know what it is.
All of which are no doubt ideas with their advantages, but totally useless for avoiding the backstop, because they are ideas for what the long-term future deal should be, which is not being negotiated in any detail at the moment, whereas the backstop is about what is in the withdrawal arrangement in return for a gentle landing rather than crashing into a field.
There is an understandable temptation to conflate the WA with the future trading agreement. But, as they say, you can't get to there from here.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
The point is that 'no-deal' is the default scenario legally at the moment. If nothing breaks the deadlock, thats what happens.
As we've noticed before, Brexit seems to have addled the brains on all sides of the argument. The latest piece of addlement is the widely-held idea that we can avoid the backstop by going for a future relationship based on Norway/Turkey/Canada+/Canada-/WTO/ or Some scheme of great advantage, but no-one to know what it is.
All of which are no doubt ideas with their advantages, but totally useless for avoiding the backstop, because they are ideas for what the long-term future deal should be, which is not being negotiated in any detail at the moment, and the backstop is about what is in the withdrawal arrangement in return for a gentle landing rather than crashing into a field.
Hard and soft Brexit all have their merits and demerits, but they aren't going to get negotiated and ratified in four months.
The language: loonballs, swivel-eyed, head-bangers, crashing out, cliff edge etc is frankly overwrought. It does nothing to advance an argument, quite the contrary - it implies the writer has lost it.
I am happy to be given advice on alternatives to "cliff edge" and "crashing out".
Crashing Out is what happens if we leave with no deal and nothing at all in place. Cliff Edge suggests that the effect of Crashing Out would be like falling off a cliff.
Going off the detailed expert descriptions of what we have now and what they would have to deal with if the UK leaves with no deal and nothing in place, both feel like good descriptions.
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Could be as easy as revoking Article 50, if that's allowable. Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
Are we not waiting on a court case to decide if that's possible? If so what is the latest in terms of when we can expect a judgement on that?
The hearing is on 27th November, and the ruling should be very soon after.
Oh as soon as that?! I'm surprised this isn't getting more coverage to be honest. If the court decides a country can unilaterally revoke invocation of article 50, it would open up remaining on current terms (ie not having to trade schengen/rebate).
Is there any legal consensus about which way the court is likely to find?
It would be very bad news for the EU if A50 was unilaterally revocable. For that reason, I think it is extremely unlikely that the Court will so rule.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
Everybody is bluffing. There is no winning hand in Parliament
Actually in Parliament nobody is bluffing. The numbers are there for all to see. The difficulty is that there are putatively three options. To get it resolved it needs to be boiled down to two.
OK, rule out No Deal. Surely no majority for it amongst any group involved, electorate, parliament or even Tory MPs.
When May's deal is rejected by the HoC that leaves no deal or no brexit.
The CJEU always rules in such a way as to increase the power of the Commission, but they will also want to give the UK a mechanism to stay, but stop us abusing the mechanism.
As such, my prediction is the CJEU will rule:
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked A50 can be revoked by a bilateral agreement between the UK and the Commission The agreement may contain stipulations mandating we may not invoke A50 again for a lengthy period of time.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
I do not expect cake, no. But I can see the EU being amenable to at least three alternative deals:
1. Remain 2. Norway+ 3. A minimal no-deal GB, with NI remaining in the EU
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
Talking of Black Friday and makeup, there was one heck of a queue outside one of the perfume shops so perhaps some expensive new pong or other is in vogue (or in Vogue). Sorry I can't be more precise.
Got my deal - Brand brush set she wanted got down from £100 to £69 and free delivery (not Amazon as an added bonus). Deal done but then my whole business career was negotiating deals. Maybe I could be seconded to no 10
The "no Brexit" path - staying in the EU: how would that work? Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
I wonder if we had a referendum of remain but signing up to everything or leave crashing out with no deal what would the outcome be. I'm thinking leave.
Agree. As rehearsed on here many times, it would be a "who governs Britain" campaign and plenty of erstwhile Remainers would be very reluctant to sign up the the Euro, SSM/SRM, etc.
I think my answer to "who governs Britain?" is "I'd rather the grown-ups in Berlin and Paris than the current shower in Westminster", but I fully accept that may not be a popular position...
All UK fishermen to be retrained as Burlesque dancers Gibraltar to be ground up and sold as artisanal salt to hipsters London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to be annexed by Emmanuel Macron's ego The pound sterling to be replaced with a new currency based on Gisela Stewart's eggs
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
I do not expect cake, no. But I can see the EU being amenable to at least three alternative deals:
1. Remain 2. Norway+ 3. A minimal no-deal GB, with NI remaining in the EU
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
You use a brush for make up? The things you learn on PB.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
I do not expect cake, no. But I can see the EU being amenable to at least three alternative deals:
1. Remain 2. Norway+ 3. A minimal no-deal GB, with NI remaining in the EU
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
You use a brush for make up? The things you learn on PB.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
But, too many think it would be fun to find out.,
Perhaps it needs to be seen to be believed.
There is no doubt that the act of sticking two fingers up to The Man informed many Leave votes. It didn't really matter what happened next it was that one moment of power from the hitherto powerless. And for those people they have indeed seen the established world turned upside down but as they had nothing to lose they didn't care. The question is whether it has been s hown to them that despite having "nothing" there is still plenty to lose. But that runs the risk of colliding with Project Fear MkII.
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
But, too many think it would be fun to find out.,
Not fun, but interesting .... (for all the wrong reasons)
Judging by the polling, lots of people favour No Deal.
The same polling that shows people think "no deal" means "status quo" ?
When Steve Barclay was interviewed this morning he said “no deal no Brexit” in a way that made it sound like a single option.
And this is the point - too many people do not now what the options are or how things work. Many of them are government ministers! Its fine to quote will of the people but its not patronising to point out that many are unaware what reality is because the people who have told them are also unaware.
No body knows what will happen. Thats the essence of risk.
We know exactly what a hard border and physical checks of products for conformance and tariffs looks like.
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
Talking of Black Friday and makeup, there was one heck of a queue outside one of the perfume shops so perhaps some expensive new pong or other is in vogue (or in Vogue). Sorry I can't be more precise.
Got my deal - Brand brush set she wanted got down from £100 to £69 and free delivery (not Amazon as an added bonus). Deal done but then my whole business career was negotiating deals. Maybe I could be seconded to no 10
She's a lucky girl. Is the present just from Grandpa or from Grannie as well? (My preferred spellings)
The truth is, we don't know what kind of Parliamentary compromise is possible. Maybe none.
But since May hasn't bothered to try, we can't know until we force her hand. Once the deal goes down, everyone will have to reveal their hands and we'll know who has 2-7 offsuit and who's been sneakily sitting on some pocket rockets.
That's a fundamental mis-understanding of how the EU are looking at this. There is no compromise, and there never will be. There is the deal, or there is no deal.
I mean, we don't know that. At the moment, we're being asked to trust the word of 27 politicians who do not have our best interests at heart.
Once May's deal goes down, only then will we see the EU's actual plan B, whatever it is.
(And please don't test our patience by implying the Commission hasn't been soft-pedalling a Plan B. Even if that Plan B is to order Ireland to start building a border fence.)
We also don't not know that. But clearly the principles of the EU are there in the 4 freedoms, and that IS absolute.
I do not expect cake, no. But I can see the EU being amenable to at least three alternative deals:
1. Remain 2. Norway+ 3. A minimal no-deal GB, with NI remaining in the EU
Of course the EU are saying "there is no alternative". You always *say* that. Doesn't mean it's true.
It looks as if it is going to be tested very soon and in the test many issues may become more apparent. TM will have to challenge the EU and they will have to respond
Indeed. The phony war is about to end. And I think it's literally impossible to adequately game what will happen when it does.
Agreed and thank you for a sensible discussion. I have received instructions from my nearly 16 year old granddaughter today that she wants some make up brushes for Xmas and we are talking mega bucks here, not B & Q black Friday £5 ones so am going to leave for now to research the best deal.
Talking of Black Friday and makeup, there was one heck of a queue outside one of the perfume shops so perhaps some expensive new pong or other is in vogue (or in Vogue). Sorry I can't be more precise.
Got my deal - Brand brush set she wanted got down from £100 to £69 and free delivery (not Amazon as an added bonus). Deal done but then my whole business career was negotiating deals. Maybe I could be seconded to no 10
Here's part of May's problem. May is trying to weaponise fear of no deal to get MPs to back her deal. But:
* Remainers don't fear no deal, because they believe Parliament wouldn't allow it to happen
* Wavering Brexiteers that have been scared off by the sight of the looming cliff edge also do not believe Parliament will let it happen.
* Hardcore Brexiteers don't think No Deal would be all that bad and this is just Project Fear mk II
* Most people agree that remain is better than May's deal, and the use of fear to bully MPs into support for her deal will only succeeding in drawing their attention to remain being the true safe haven.
I mean real money hasn't existed for a long time. Fiat currency is just an idea. Whether it's represented electronically or printed on a bit of plastic, it's all just information.
Comments
https://twitter.com/piers_corbyn/status/1066561373440802816?s=21
And we know how persuasive her general election campaign tours were......
Still, if the Commons has now decided that the UK will not leave the EU, then your approach is the correct one. Tell the voters they were wrong, and then take the consequences at the next election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/labour-argues-for-article-50-extension-if-brexit-deal-voted-down
Be careful what you wish for
I also believe Ireland do want a deal. I think the backstop is them getting cocky because they think we are under their thumb. I think no deal is the last thing they really want.
Could it be done by the stroke of a pen or would 27 countries each have to agree to it? And apart from eating humble pie, wouldn't it also involve losing the rebates and possibly having to sign up to Schengen and the Euro? I suppose we'd keep the €42b ransom though.
Otherwise, any Member State that was unhappy could just give and rescind A50 notices at will.
We shall decide brexit by World of Sport rules. Brexit to be decided in the ring. A bout between Jacob The Hammer Rees-Mogg and his opponent Kier the Human Cannonball Starmer. Two Falls, Two Submissions or a Knockout.
EASY
EASY
EASY
etc
What's the point of extending Art. 50 ?
To punish us pesky Brits?
Becuase the French are French?
Any reason really.
Otherwise, assuming the EU aren't completely pissed off with us by now, it should be possible to go back to where we were.
Sometimes the last thing everyone wants happens.
Apparently "experts" have told him that...
Two ahhh
*shoulder goes up*
While the consequences would not be so severe as WWI, there is the same universal belief that your opponents will back down if you only hold firm.
IMHO, the EU have gone as far as they will go, May has gone as far as she will go, and backing her deal is preferable to every available alternative.
What is your "realistic compromise"? That is doable now. Not in future fantasy-land?
Amazing how supposedly patriotic we love Britain Brexiters are only now realising, Raab-like, how their country is actually constituted.
loonballs, swivel-eyed, head-bangers, crashing out, cliff edge etc
is frankly overwrought. It does nothing to advance an argument, quite the contrary - it implies the writer has lost it.
The Backstop is a microcosm of the macrocosm. We only need it because we won't choose between Softest Brexit and losing Northern Ireland which are the two logical choices. If voting down May's deal means getting rid of May then that's an extra Christmas present. Unless you've a loyalty fetish to whoever leads the Conservative Party at any one moment ( and they are over represented on here ) I really can"t see why anyone on any side of the Brexit debate wants to support this Turkey.
Got it.
I just think we would be able to get the chemicals.
Sodium silicoflouride and Aluminium Sulphate can be bought outside the EU easily for example.
And I never advocated crashing out so I'm not sure how it is mine exactly.
All of which are no doubt ideas with their advantages, but totally useless for avoiding the backstop, because they are ideas for what the long-term future deal should be, which is not being negotiated in any detail at the moment, whereas the backstop is about what is in the withdrawal arrangement in return for a gentle landing rather than crashing into a field.
Is there any legal consensus about which way the court is likely to find?
Crashing Out is what happens if we leave with no deal and nothing at all in place.
Cliff Edge suggests that the effect of Crashing Out would be like falling off a cliff.
Going off the detailed expert descriptions of what we have now and what they would have to deal with if the UK leaves with no deal and nothing in place, both feel like good descriptions.
As such, my prediction is the CJEU will rule:
A50 cannot be unilaterally revoked
A50 can be revoked by a bilateral agreement between the UK and the Commission
The agreement may contain stipulations mandating we may not invoke A50 again for a lengthy period of time.
All UK fishermen to be retrained as Burlesque dancers
Gibraltar to be ground up and sold as artisanal salt to hipsters
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham to be annexed by Emmanuel Macron's ego
The pound sterling to be replaced with a new currency based on Gisela Stewart's eggs
Lots of people think Leave with No Deal, means status quo.
Real money is electronic! I haven't paid for anything with cash for over 6 months.
Quite frankly, you're fortunate I shan't be sending my manservant to issue an invitation to settle this on the field of honour.
Oh, sorry, "banker". My mistake.
* Remainers don't fear no deal, because they believe Parliament wouldn't allow it to happen
* Wavering Brexiteers that have been scared off by the sight of the looming cliff edge also do not believe Parliament will let it happen.
* Hardcore Brexiteers don't think No Deal would be all that bad and this is just Project Fear mk II
* Most people agree that remain is better than May's deal, and the use of fear to bully MPs into support for her deal will only succeeding in drawing their attention to remain being the true safe haven.