Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Disgraced national security risk Liam Fox will have the trade deal with Tonga sorted any day now. They've got vanilla beans.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Is this what passes for debate on here? That and retards calling people "winnets" that don't want this crappy deal (which includes the majority of the country and MPs).
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.
If there is any window at all for May's deal to pass, it has to be through the constituency chairmen. The Mail is probably not a bad way of reaching them, but I suspect more of them read the Telegraph, aka Boris Weekly.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.
If there is any window at all for May's deal to pass, it has to be through the constituency chairmen. The Mail is probably not a bad way of reaching them, but I suspect more of them read the Telegraph, aka Boris Weekly.
I'm doubtful whether Boris' increasingly delusional witterings are doing his cause - and that of the ERG winnets - much good.
It is amusing to see critics attacking the messenger rather than engaging with the findings
This forum must provide you with a lot of entertainment!
I wonder if Mrs May shares Mrs Thatcher's view:
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Disgraced national security risk Liam Fox will have the trade deal with Tonga sorted any day now. They've got vanilla beans.
I thought Vanilla came from Madagascar?
Perhaps Dr Fox can be persuaded to stay in Tonga. Permanently
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
Although a retainer yet again I agree with Mr G. More specificity about the way forward is needed.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
The EU and EU leaders are on the record saying remain is an option. May has neglected developing this option (or at least sharing that with us). But we are pushing at an open door. There is no doubt that this could be delivered in time for March, but May has (for understandable reasons) not given an official stamp.
Since there is a majority in the HoC for a vote it can go through quickly. The 2016 bill provides a blue print to accelerate the process hugely.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
More than that: people who want to remain on old terms, and especially those who believe in the EU project, should start selling it. They cannot just sit back - as so many did in the run-up to the referendum - and bask in the light of their righteousness.
There is much good about the EU, and it has done a lot of good. And yes, there is much wrong with it, and it has done some harm. But if you really want to remain, you should be shouting the former from the rooftops.
But I fear that's too much like hard work for many hardcore remainers.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.
If there is any window at all for May's deal to pass, it has to be through the constituency chairmen. The Mail is probably not a bad way of reaching them, but I suspect more of them read the Telegraph, aka Boris Weekly.
And Labour Party Constituency Chairs read the Morning Star and the Guardian?
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
I'm beginning to wonder if Jezza will actually make it to GE 2022 as leader.
If Corbyn continues to insist that a Labour government will lead the UK out of the EU and EEA without any further debate he may be gone quickly. He is untouchable if the membership continue to back him. If he is explicitly ignoring their wishes on an issue of such import, he could be gone quickly. And McDonnell is one of the few people with the clout to hand him the pearl revolver.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
So the anticipated cost of a hard brexit relative to remaining in the EU is a decidedly less than catastrophic 0.5% per annum diminution in our national income? That hardly supports the majority view of those in the know that this outcome simply must be avoided.
I particularly liked the story a year or two back of the long range weather forecasting company set up and employing mainly Russian models, whose primary function was to keep the Express's supply of freak weather headlines topped up
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
The EU and EU leaders are on the record saying remain is an option. May has neglected developing this option (or at least sharing that with us). But we are pushing at an open door. There is no doubt that this could be delivered in time for March, but May has (for understandable reasons) not given an official stamp.
Since there is a majority in the HoC for a vote it can go through quickly. The 2016 bill provides a blue print to accelerate the process hugely.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
Although a retainer yet again I agree with Mr G. More specificity about the way forward is needed.
We are at a stage where detail is a little more possible, but not a lot. We may have a Political Declaration, but it is not a lot of use in giving us a definitive view of the way trade negotiations will develop.
We also do not know how the EU will develop and what our where future relationship as a member would take us.
The future is uncertain, no matter which route we take, it is hard to have a referendum on this and be definitive that A, b, and C will happen. Events, dear boy.
There may be one way out of the mess: We agree the deal as presented to parliament, but subject to the finalisation and completion of the FTA and the future relationship within a given time frame. This will then have to be accepted by Parliament prior to ratification and agreement with EU.
That is enacting the nothing agreed until everything agreed mantra. It won't be acceptable to EU, as it reduces the negotiating leverage they have. It will sort out DUP, and would probably get the deal through Parliament at this stage.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
More than that: people who want to remain on old terms, and especially those who believe in the EU project, should start selling it. They cannot just sit back - as so many did in the run-up to the referendum - and bask in the light of their righteousness.
There is much good about the EU, and it has done a lot of good. And yes, there is much wrong with it, and it has done some harm. But if you really want to remain, you should be shouting the former from the rooftops.
But I fear that's too much like hard work for many hardcore remainers.
We may be seeing the same lazy attitude from remainers that we see from ERG
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
You could pose the question the other way round to Brexiteers. Donald Trump is right about Theresa May's deal. As he tweeted the other day, either Britain accepts European regulations, courts and tribunals, or it accepts American ones. Them's the choices. We don't get to impose our own. #TakeBackControl.
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.
If there is any window at all for May's deal to pass, it has to be through the constituency chairmen. The Mail is probably not a bad way of reaching them, but I suspect more of them read the Telegraph, aka Boris Weekly.
And Labour Party Constituency Chairs read the Morning Star and the Guardian?
Increasingly, the Skwawkbox and the Canary and whatever that muppet Bastani's site is called, I fear.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
That the chlorine is required to cleanse the poultry as it is produced in more crowded and less animal friendly conditions than EU regulations permit, I think.
It is proxy for an animal welfare issue used in an emotive way, rather than the human health issue it pretends to be.
Mr. W, I think the belief actually relates to the trade deficit, though.
But yes, as a rule, trade = good.
Although when you let yourself be subjected to effective IP theft and then undercut by copycats, that's less good. Ahem.
Mrs C, I do think a US trade deal is overblown in importance. That said, the EU isn't just an economic construct. Were it, it'd be far more popular. Article 13 sounds bloody horrendous, they've buggered up VAT, and their policy on antique books is delinquent nonsense.
The army will require policy guidance which requires an EU defence department. And integration will only increase.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Why would a free trade agreement with the US automatically mean a bigger loss?
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
I have no problem with the deal and fear that ERG will lose brexit altogether
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Ireland just got a cheque for £14Bn from Apple. You know - the American company.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
I have no problem with the deal and fear that ERG will lose brexit altogether
A deal that can't pass Parliament is no deal.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
It should also be noted that mail on line where caustic comments derive from is populated by ERG/UKIP whereas the newspaper is widely read by conservative voters and especially now it is available fully on line
I would suggest some conservative mps will be concerned, not least as the mail will not back off their full on attack on those intending to vote down TM deal.
If there is any window at all for May's deal to pass, it has to be through the constituency chairmen. The Mail is probably not a bad way of reaching them, but I suspect more of them read the Telegraph, aka Boris Weekly.
And Labour Party Constituency Chairs read the Morning Star and the Guardian?
Some of them still find The Beano too challenging.
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
I have no problem with the deal and fear that ERG will lose brexit altogether
A deal that can't pass Parliament is no deal.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
It would probably pass if there was a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop...
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
There's more to a trade deal with the US than "chlorinated chicken".
Indeed there is. The US is on the wrong side of the current US/UK trade balance as we are a nett earner from it.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
You don't think there are any opportunities or advantages with a free trade arrangement with the US?
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
It is very simple. We make a big profit from the USA. If we negotiate with Trump our big profit will become a small profit or possibly even a loss. That is £34bn (or part) lost.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
Why would a free trade agreement with the US automatically mean a bigger loss?
Because the Trump administration has already said that it wants Trade Deals changed to America's benefit. That means they are not going to change the current deal to the UK's benefit.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
As I understood it it is not the fact that it is chlorinated per se that is the issue it is the reasons why it needs to be chlorinated that is the problem. Not sure I am right but I'm sure someone will correct me if not!
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
They will see we are a split nation, both public and politicians. No return to Artice 50 for xx years?
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
I think you already have the answer in the WDA. That will not be re-opened
So they claim but the WDA won't pass Parliament. You and I both want the same end goal - a good deal to pass. This deal as it stands won't pass. It can't pass. Fix the backstop it can. IDS, Boris, the DUP etc have all said the backstop is the one thing making them vote this down.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
I have no problem with the deal and fear that ERG will lose brexit altogether
A deal that can't pass Parliament is no deal.
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
And the overlap with the people who think ending free movement wasn’t why people voted for Brexit.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
Oh FFS are leavers allowed to have any media that represents their views?
You have BoZo's personal blog. Google "The Telegraph" to read it
What does it matter now? Seems clear that Leaver representatives in Parliament are determined to blow-up their own dream by scuppering anything that might just work and chasing off after unicorns.
Nothing the Daily Mail says looks likely to swing 100 or more of ultras back from shooting the whole thing down imho.
Good! Because "this whole thing" isnt Brexit which is why it was negotiated by and for Remainers. It's why the deals biggest cheerleaders are remainers. Shoot down the deal, tell the Irish we have a deal if they drop the backstop, run the clock down and prepare for no deal. Let the Irish sort their own mess out.
With respect that is just a rant and even I trust our HOC to stop that in its tracks
Was that said as someone who backed remain or leave? Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
ERG have no more than 80 mps with the rest alligned against no deal
I'm not suggesting we seek out no deal. I'm saying we prepare for it as a backstop in case it happens and say we go for May's deal but replace the backstop with a good faith and sincere co-operation commitment to an open Irish border.
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
The EU have had 20+ years of Boris's bad faith, and now the ERG's saliva drenched chomping at the bit to be rid of the shackles at the first available opportunity. Would you really trust these lunatics to honour a gentleman's good faith clause and do the right things to sort the Irish border before setting sail? No? (for it is the only possible answer). Well, neither should the EU - too bloody right they want a backstop.
For all this is supposedly getting messy, Tory dealers are still being far too polite about their opponents to win this. Time to go for the full on Blue on Blue attack and lay bare the dark hearts of these imbeciles.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
As I understood it it is not the fact that it is chlorinated per se that is the issue it is the reasons why it needs to be chlorinated that is the problem. Not sure I am right but I'm sure someone will correct me if not!
Basically yes. Animal welfare in the US is appalling in comparison with EU/UK standards, so the animals are often dosed to prevent them getting ill and humans ingest that. At slaughter, the animals are frequently filthy and the washing down with Chlorine Dioxide removes bacteria.
In summary - US farmers do it as cheap as they can. Low welfare = lower costs = more profits.
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
Very good post as ever.
The debate has descended into some on here actually admitting to enjoying the division and deadlock. Fortunately, no matter how divisive this is I very much doubt enjoyment in most of their minds
Can someone cleverer than me (most of you) please explain how 48% of those that voted leave and 46% of those that voted remain are for the deal but only 41% total? Thanks.
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
I think there are three solutions to the backstop.
Eurosceptics and unionists won't like them two of them though.
i) The first is concluding a FTA - that's the most desirable.
ii) The second is a unilateral option to reaceed to the European Union. I think that would mean probably joining the Euro, so whether a government of ours would wish to exercise it is debateable - nevertheless it is a solution to the border issues if no others can be found. In practice I believe UK Governments would probably stay in the backstop. It might be an option outside of the scope of the WA anyway, someone might want to ask the EU... I do not think we are precluded from ever rejoining.
iii) The other is a straight referendum in Northern Ireland to rejoin the Republic. If passed the backstop can be ditched, of course NI citizens should hold an indefinite right to British passports. I think the Irish Gov't would grant this if the referendum was won by the nationalist side. NI may however vote to stay and enjoy the benefits as @rcs1000 has set out.
Contrary to my assertion the WA likely couldn't be changed, I think the EU might agree to some sort of fast tracked option ii) as a minor amendment to the WA if we put it to them. But we won't ask for it.
Morning All Seems we are doing quite well with the rest of the World. Sorry if it has been posted already.
Telegraph Anna Isaac, economics correspondent 27 NOVEMBER 2018 • 5:58PM Follow The UK has won agreement for its independent membership of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), ensuring it will retain access to a market worth $1.7 trillion after Brexit. The GPA is an agreement among 46 WTO members that allows them to bid for government contracts for the provision of goods, services or construction in each others' countries. Members include the US, the European Union and Japan. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/27/breakthrough-uk-trillion-dollar-trade-agreement/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
The UK wouldn't be *rejoining*, because it's already a member. This is part of the reason the People's Vote people are in such a hurry to get a People's Vote now rather than just letting Britain Brexit then rejoin when it turns out not necessarily to Britain's advantage, because joining is much, much harder than not leaving.
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
With respect that is a lazy answer. A statement that the EU wouldn't expect........ and a phone call to the 27 in a week and of course ignore the EU Parliament just does not provide a serious response to a genuine question which is not even a trick question
I think you're saying you don't believe my answer? The UK is already a member of the EU. It has not yet left. The problem is cancelling / extending the Article 50 notification, not rejoining. The EU Council specifically has the power to extend its departure indefinitely, and probably has the power to cancel it definitively (there should be a ruling on this soon). The EU Parliament is not involved. The EU Council members can literally reach agreements overnight when there's a crisis, and have done on previous occasions.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
They've already said they'd remove our rebate.
Which makes our future membership entirely untenable. Our net contribution would go from £8.9 billion to £14.5 billion pa. It would make us the biggest net contributor to the EU. Most expensive free trade deal ever.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
The peoples vote campaign need to sharpen up their act. Using peoples vote is as dishonest as the bus and is just so annoying, they need to be honest and call it a second referendum
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
You're free to pose questions, Big G, but the lesson from Leave's victory is that the side that ignores the hard questions and simply goes "lalala we have a plan and it will be terrific" is the one that wins. Corbyn knows this very well.
So you are happy for remainers to act in the same way as leave
Surely remainers have been putting forward scenario after scenario for the last two years and debunking the "We will be fine - something will turn up!" trope pushed by many Leavers?
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
I would want an absolute commitment by the EU that our rebate is safe and we remain as exactly as we are now with no hidden covenants or conditions
I would not be surprised if the rebate was the penalty for stopping the whole mess, but I do not know and it probably will have to wait on the CJEU ruling.
Even if we do lose the rebate, the EU would be wise to get us to agree to a sliding scale loss were we lose the rebate in increments across a period of (say) 10 or 15 years.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
In the broader context, this is worth noting too from the same page:
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
Mr. Jessop, nobody forced her to sign up to the backstop, or to proceed on the basis of staying as close as possible to the EU rather than trying to maximise the advantages of leaving.
That's the problem right there.
There are no advantages to leaving.
Importing chlorinated chicken from the US is not an advantage.
Abandoning workers' rights and environmental standards is not an advantage.
I thought it had more chlorine and less salmonella, so it is a compromise. I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
Thank you for your response which I agree with to an extent.
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
They will only exercise that power if we forfeit our rebate though.
You're just making stuff up.
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
As I've said many times before, the headache for the EU wouldn't evaporate unless the Europhobes are thoroughly defeated at the ballot box.
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.
Comments
Is this what passes for debate on here? That and retards calling people "winnets" that don't want this crappy deal (which includes the majority of the country and MPs).
However, for those supporters of a second referendum I pose the following questions
How do they obtain EU acceptance we would rejoin on exactly the same terms and conditions, bearing in mind this would require the EU Council and Parliament to endorse the terms.
How long would it be expected before the EU could issue those guarantees
How long would the details of the referendum take to go through the HOC and HOL
How would the wording/ choices be arrived at
Should a simple majority 50.5 to 49.5 either way be acceptable
I would rather berate US chicken for lower standards of animal welfare (which is largely why chlorine is required). I also think that would be a more effective argument in UK. We are accustomed to chlorine in water, swimming pools, it is not a scary element. We are far more motivated by animal welfare.
As a consumer I would be more concerned about the use of growth hormones in meat.
I wonder if Mrs May shares Mrs Thatcher's view:
I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.
Given Trump's "America first", he has every incentive to change our current trading arrangements to his advantage and our detriment. Chlorinated chicken is the least of it...
Perhaps Dr Fox can be persuaded to stay in Tonga. Permanently
Do you expect HOC MPs who backed remain or leave to stop it?
Since there is a majority in the HoC for a vote it can go through quickly. The 2016 bill provides a blue print to accelerate the process hugely.
One vote is enough to win.
There is much good about the EU, and it has done a lot of good. And yes, there is much wrong with it, and it has done some harm. But if you really want to remain, you should be shouting the former from the rooftops.
But I fear that's too much like hard work for many hardcore remainers.
https://www.express.co.uk/latest/aliens
I don't understand the mindset that free trade with the EU is great and must be continued at all costs, whereas the same with the US is a disaster and we'll all be eating chlorinated chicken.
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4120.html
But as we discussed upthread it would go much more smoothly with an assurance that they'd agree to Remain and wouldn't expect change of status, which would involve someone on the British waiting until a time of the day when Jean-Claude Juncker was reasonably sober and having a word with him, then him getting all the other 27 members on the phone, so I dunno, a week?
Can you please enlighten us as to what is in fact wrong with chlorinated chicken.
Quite handy.
"The UK had a trade surplus with the USA of around £34 billion in the year to June 2017, so we export more to them than we import. In terms of services, the UK had a surplus of over £23 billion, and in terms of goods we had a surplus of over £10 billion in that time."
https://fullfact.org/economy/trade-deficit-surplus-USA-EU/
We may have a Political Declaration, but it is not a lot of use in giving us a definitive view of the way trade negotiations will develop.
We also do not know how the EU will develop and what our where future relationship as a member would take us.
The future is uncertain, no matter which route we take, it is hard to have a referendum on this and be definitive that A, b, and C will happen. Events, dear boy.
There may be one way out of the mess:
We agree the deal as presented to parliament, but subject to the finalisation and completion of the FTA and the future relationship within a given time frame. This will then have to be accepted by Parliament prior to ratification and agreement with EU.
That is enacting the nothing agreed until everything agreed mantra. It won't be acceptable to EU, as it reduces the negotiating leverage they have. It will sort out DUP, and would probably get the deal through Parliament at this stage.
Free trade with the EU is necessary because we have integrated our production and manufacturing with European companies and standards. Chopping this off has the potential to cause massive disruption and therefore costs money.
So... to summarise.
Negotiate free trade with Trump = Lose money & jobs
Wreck current frictionless trade with EU = Lose money & jobs
If our good faith and sincere co-operation isn't good enough and the Irish would rather an immediate hard border than an open border as we seek out an amicable solution then that is their choice.
It is proxy for an animal welfare issue used in an emotive way, rather than the human health issue it pretends to be.
But yes, as a rule, trade = good.
Although when you let yourself be subjected to effective IP theft and then undercut by copycats, that's less good. Ahem.
Mrs C, I do think a US trade deal is overblown in importance. That said, the EU isn't just an economic construct. Were it, it'd be far more popular. Article 13 sounds bloody horrendous, they've buggered up VAT, and their policy on antique books is delinquent nonsense.
The army will require policy guidance which requires an EU defence department. And integration will only increase.
It still does not add up though...
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
If you want to save May's deal the path is clear. Stop arguing with those who want the deal fixed and argue with our partners to save this deal.
If you cancel or indefinitely extend the Article 50 notification, nothing has happened to change anything else about the UK's status. However, since Leave supporters would certainly claim that it would, it would be politically useful to get a clear statement to this effect. If you don't believe me when I say they'd almost certainly do that, go back to the comments discussing this upthread and tell me where you disagree.
As for schedules, well they are out there. We have a hard deadline of March 2019. The CJEU are considering an important aspect of Brexit and the mechanisms for cancelling it. The case has been made over and over again about economic damage and the lies of the "We will be swamped by immigrants" strategy.
What more do you want?
#clueless
Do you agree that if the backstop goes this deal could pass Parliament?
However, key to winning is that the EU do not put conditions on us remaining, remove our rebate, or insert restrictive covenants. That has to receive formal EU consent
“May is not a good person. May is nasty, incompetent, dishonest xenophobe, devoid of wisdom, charm, personality or wit. She's bloody minded for the sake of being bloody minded. She has ruined everything she's touched, and her entire political career has been focused on being as mean and obnoxious as possible to all immigrants.
She's a vile old hag and all of her suffering is 1000% earned.
Good riddance to bad rubbish tbh, it's just a shame her suffering will soon be over. I'd have liked to see her suffer a great deal more.”
from @grabcocque on the previous thread is a touch OTT.
May is not up to the job of being PM and has not handled the Brexit issue well. Though even Solomon would have struggled, I dare say.
But she achieved the deportation of Abu Qatada, which is more than can be said of previous, possibly nicer, Home Secretaries, she tried to deal with the very real perception by young black men that they were being unfairly targeted by the police, she helped the Hillsborough families behind the scenes and was praised by them for her help and she has pushed through quite a lot of action on the issue of modern slavery. And it was not her who started the attacks on the Windrush generation (though she can be criticised for continuing them in such an unept and hurtful way). She has also done a lot within the Tory party to help women become candidates.
There are plenty of things she can be criticised for. For instance, her reported refusal to countenance giving asylum to Asia Bibi for fear of enraging extremist Muslims here (contrary to the wishes of the current Home and Foreign Secretaries) is utterly shameful.
But to call someone a “vile old hag” and wish suffering on a woman in public life smacks of an unpleasantly bullying and mysogynistic attitude which reflects rather more - and badly IMO - on those saying and supporting such things than on the target.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/969525362580484098
No return to Artice 50 for xx years?
What I find amazing about this is the overlap between the people who thought the rest of the EU would redesign the 4 freedoms to keep Britain in if Cameron would only negotiate hard enough and the people who think the exact same people would refuse to accept the status quo in return for the evaporation of a serious headache.
For all this is supposedly getting messy, Tory dealers are still being far too polite about their opponents to win this. Time to go for the full on Blue on Blue attack and lay bare the dark hearts of these imbeciles.
In summary - US farmers do it as cheap as they can. Low welfare = lower costs = more profits.
Now I can see here
Stable and Strong
Th'resa May
The debate has descended into some on here actually admitting to enjoying the division and deadlock. Fortunately, no matter how divisive this is I very much doubt enjoyment in most of their minds
Eurosceptics and unionists won't like them two of them though.
i) The first is concluding a FTA - that's the most desirable.
ii) The second is a unilateral option to reaceed to the European Union. I think that would mean probably joining the Euro, so whether a government of ours would wish to exercise it is debateable - nevertheless it is a solution to the border issues if no others can be found. In practice I believe UK Governments would probably stay in the backstop. It might be an option outside of the scope of the WA anyway, someone might want to ask the EU... I do not think we are precluded from ever rejoining.
iii) The other is a straight referendum in Northern Ireland to rejoin the Republic. If passed the backstop can be ditched, of course NI citizens should hold an indefinite right to British passports. I think the Irish Gov't would grant this if the referendum was won by the nationalist side. NI may however vote to stay and enjoy the benefits as @rcs1000 has set out.
Contrary to my assertion the WA likely couldn't be changed, I think the EU might agree to some sort of fast tracked option ii) as a minor amendment to the WA if we put it to them. But we won't ask for it.
Seems we are doing quite well with the rest of the World. Sorry if it has been posted already.
Telegraph
Anna Isaac, economics correspondent
27 NOVEMBER 2018 • 5:58PM
Follow
The UK has won agreement for its independent membership of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), ensuring it will retain access to a market worth $1.7 trillion after Brexit.
The GPA is an agreement among 46 WTO members that allows them to bid for government contracts for the provision of goods, services or construction in each others' countries. Members include the US, the European Union and Japan.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/11/27/breakthrough-uk-trillion-dollar-trade-agreement/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget
Mike
"The UK ran a trade deficit with the EU of around £80 billion in year to June 2017, so we export less than we import...... This is primarily driven by goods—the UK had a trade deficit of just under £97 billion with the EU during that time. In terms of services, we had a surplus of £17 billion."
In May's agreement, the UK has committed to maintaining the same general open trading relationship that produced that £97bn deficit in goods, at the price of giving the EU and its individual member states huge leverage in resolving numerous specific issues through the resort to a backstop we cannot leave if the UK does not play ball. [Macron's signalled blackmail over fishing rights is just a taster.] On the other hand, in terms of the £17bn surplus in services, May has secured diddly squat in terms of an agreement to secure a continuation for the UK of the current arrangements for financial services, with the EU having the unilateral right to pull the plug on those arrangements giving notice of just one month.
So, in a nutshell, May's agreement protects the £97bn EU trade surplus in goods with the UK, yets endangers the £17bn UK surplus in services. Worst of all worlds.
Even if we do lose the rebate, the EU would be wise to get us to agree to a sliding scale loss were we lose the rebate in increments across a period of (say) 10 or 15 years.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-budget-rebate-gunther-oetinger-second-referendum-remain-a8580616.html
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-rebate/britain-would-lose-eu-rebate-even-if-it-decided-to-ditch-brexit-eu-official-idUKKCN1MM1PV
Verhofstadt: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/14/perks-end-uk-eu-guy-verhofstadt
The EU know that they'll just be back in this same situation in a few years.