Meanwhile, for a bit of light relief from from discussions about jailed MPs and Br*x*t, I have found myself in Las Vegas for a few days.
Anything I absolutely have to do while here?
Hire a car, go to the grand canyon.
Thanks will look at doing that. Good call.
The view from the south rim in Arizona is utterly spectacular, although that might be a bit of a drive I’ve also done the helicopter tour, taking off from Vegas and having a picnic in the canyon. Most enjoyable.
Looks like the Cons are still split with 300 odd on ready to compromise and 9 remain ultras holding out.
These wets are a drag on progress.
Is that statement meant to be ironic? The poster boy of the headbangers who got us into all this mess would drag us back into the 1950s and still believe that everything was still too "new-fangled"( you know who I mean; the one that looks like the bastard child of a union between Himmler and Walter the Softy).
And yet they keep saying that the UK must be clear what it wants...
If the EU are clear the WDA can't be re-negotiated, why are our MPs wasting time on amendments whose main purpose is to seek to renegotiate the WDA?
I can only assume the Conservative Party will play the "anti-European" card when May is finally humiliated by the EU. The likes of Barnier, Juncker and Weygand will be subject to the usual personal and unpleasant slurs from the usual suspects.
Juncker and Selmayr deserve plenty of brickbats. Barnier, not so much.
These endless points of order do nothing to extinguish the suspicion that this is one big game to this lot.
And JRM is getting more pompous by the day (from an already world-beating starting point).
Rees Mogg, in his head, is one of the great parliamentarians, A man of the most enormous gravitas and elegance whose contributions in the House will be celebrated for generations to come.
And yet they keep saying that the UK must be clear what it wants...
If the EU are clear the WDA can't be re-negotiated,
How can anyone square the "WDA being untouchable" with "tell us what you want".
Nonsense on stilts from the EU.
My reading is that it's untouchable in the direction that ERG, and now TMay, will seek to move it.
I suspect it would be very much "welcome to my sweetie shop, what would you like?" if the Remainers etc had dragged her the other way. And given that looked for a fleeting moment like the direction of travel when she invited everyone else for tea and cake last week, I can see why they left the door open.
And yet they keep saying that the UK must be clear what it wants...
If the EU are clear the WDA can't be re-negotiated,
How can anyone square the "WDA being untouchable" with "tell us what you want".
Nonsense on stilts from the EU.
Quite. They’re saying out of one side of their mouth that the UK needs to say what it wants, and out of the other that they’re not going to change anything.
These endless points of order do nothing to extinguish the suspicion that this is one big game to this lot.
And JRM is getting more pompous by the day (from an already world-beating starting point).
Rees Mogg, in his head, is one of the great parliamentarians, A man of the most enormous gravitas and elegance whose contributions in the House will be celebrated for generations to come.
And had he been there in 1952, many others would have agreed with him. Splendid chap. Right school. Tells the oiks what's what.
Outrageous - her crime was worst than her brothers.
This is beyond ridiculous
Can someone remind me what each party did ?
He pleaded guilty - for a start. She continues to deny it.
That alone makes it hard to believe how she got a lesser sentence. Plus being a solicitor, she knew the consequences of her actions and the law involved.
This is a mockery of justice.
Argument is she didn’t intend to commit a crime until she did intend to commit a crime. I think 😝
The Brady amendment was always and is now a fantasy amendment. The EU has said time and again that they will not change the deal. I mean wasn't the last WA defeat supposed to have brought them snivelling to the table offering anything and everything that JRM wanted? How did that work out?
That May has supported it, if she has, is a funnily enough surprising example of her being duplicitous, unless she knows/knew it had no future but it is still unlike her.
The Tories have reached the same point as Labour, and can only be held together only by a fantasy. On anything real they are divided.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Nope. What is this cross-party 'softer Brexit which the EU would have agreed to'? Would it, for example, have required any changes to the Withdrawal Agreement - you know, the one which the EU has said a thousand times can't be changed?
Juncker has said it can be changed in the EU’s favour.
I think what I'm saying is that the Cooper amendment might not make it much more difficult, because the request for an extension would be made so early. If the EU refused it, that would leave another month for minds to be concentrated. And perhaps they would then be more concentrated than if a request hadn't been made.
It might tend to reduce the pressure on MPs over the coming month, but increase it over the following month.
I get you. Yes, perhaps so.
I do wonder, though, if Labour are 'overacting' in this particular drama. Brexit is a Tory feast, soup to nuts, and they are in a terrible place with it, to the extent that it is hard to see a non-traumatic way out for them.
So, Labour, why not play it very very cool and passive? - keep opposing the 'tory brexit' and demanding a general election, stop it with all the alternatives and the amendments and the speeches, just allow the Tories to complete their hari kari.
Yup. Big political match, the only Qataris in the UAE are the team, still no direct flights between the two countries.
World Cup is going to fun is that blockade continues.
Very much so. There’s barely going to be enough hotel rooms in Qatar for the teams - the plan involved using other cities in the region as hubs, with lots of A380s running shuttle services to and from the matches.
Watching England is probably going to be either straight there and straight back, seven hours each way, or staged from somewhere like Turkey or Greece.
A dental student found guilty of sexually assaulting a six-year-old girl will face no punishment after being granted an absolute discharge.
Christopher Daniel, 18, denied carrying out numerous assaults on the girl while he was aged 15 to 17 and she was between six and eight.
He was granted the discharge by Sheriff Gerard Sinclair after being found guilty at Dumbarton sheriff court at the end of a three-day trial. It means that Daniel, from Glasgow, will not be placed on the sex offenders register and the guilty verdict was not recorded as a conviction.
The victim’s family were not allowed to see a report sent by the sheriff to the Crown Office explaining his “wholly exceptional” decision, an STV investigation has found. They believe that Daniel’s middle-class background, strong educational attainment and career prospects helped to convince the sheriff to grant the most lenient possible disposal.
The Lord Advocate does have the right to refer a sentence that is thought to be unduly lenient but this is rarely done. It was in this case, however, but then the appeal against sentence by the Crown was abandoned earlier this month.
This decision is extremely weird. I can only wonder if the accused has some serious life-shortening condition. And even then....
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
Mr. Sandpit, cheers. There's a staggering lack of media coverage on the matter.
Indeed. It’s part of a long and complicated conflict of Sunni and Shia which has been ongoing since forever. The recent blockade of Qatar by their Arab neighbours was triggered by their funding of the Iranian militia who are trying to overthrow the government in Yemen, causing a civil war.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
They can't both pass, can they? Once one is agreed, don't the rest all fall by default?
Brady says that the WA will be passed if the backstop comes out. Cooper says that if nothing is passed by 26 Feb the government should ask for an extension.
So they seem compatible as a double act? - Or at least not incompatible?
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
Well, since negotiations are over, that's the only deal on the table. It's that or no-deal.
At some stage MPs voting against it need to take responsibility - they are essentially voting for no deal.
Yup. Big political match, the only Qataris in the UAE are the team, still no direct flights between the two countries.
World Cup is going to fun is that blockade continues.
Very much so. There’s barely going to be enough hotel rooms in Qatar for the teams - the plan involved using other cities in the region as hubs, with lots of A380s running shuttle services to and from the matches.
Watching England is probably going to be either straight there and straight back, seven hours each way, or staged from somewhere like Turkey or Greece.
Quite a day trip for 90 mins of footy. I love my live sports, but I think I will pass on that one.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
Well, since negotiations are over, that's the only deal on the table. It's that or no-deal.
At some stage MPs voting against it need to take responsibility - they are essentially voting for no deal.
That is clearly the govt's line after running down the clock. I know they want it to be true, but it isn't. We can delay to find a better approach, have a referendum or revoke. It is not a binary choice.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
a - Magic Unicorn o - Displacement Activity g - Displacement Activity b - Displacement Activity j - Magic Unicorn i - Displacement Activity n - Magic Unicorn/Displacement Activity hybrid.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
Agreed.
And my sense is - this is creeping up on me - that TM, push to shove, will be prepared to preside over a no deal exit if she cannot get anything passed.
"I tried, my people. I tried and tried to get a deal through. It was not possible due to (insert those to blame). But we must, as I have always said, respect the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Brexit means Brexit."
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
Not just the ERG, of course.
But once the blame game has been played, what happens then? We're in the deepest doggy-do and in an even weaker position than we are now, aren't we? There is going to be a reckoning at some point and it is not going to be pleasant.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
Well said.
I oppose this deal because I think no deal is better than a bad deal. If you genuinely think that no deal is worse than this deal then the answer is to back this deal.
Nothing stops Labour winning the next election on a pledge to join a permanent customs union.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
The voters (en masse) wont care. They'll see which party was in charge, which party has campaigned for Brexit for decades, and which party failed to get an agreement, and which party had unhinged MPs on the news every day telling us it's all scaremongering, and we should just buck up, get some fighting spirit.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
A time limit on the backstop is the only way. We shouldnt even be needing the backstop, never mind a time limited one. To go to the wire for that might be the greatest collective diplomatic failure since the second world war.
We will not forget a No Deal, and a close future relationship will be nothing but a remote possibility.
Historically, in America the buck stops with the president and seemingly Pelosi proved it still does even with Trump. It used to be the case here, Cameron resigned when he had to. About the only sensible thing he did in the whole Brexit saga.
In Britain, if we are to believe supporters of the PM, the buck not only doesn't stop at No10, it has never been to no10.
May's first and only job was to find a deal agreeable to the UK and EU, whatever happens next she will be judged on that. The buck stops with her.
Yup. Big political match, the only Qataris in the UAE are the team, still no direct flights between the two countries.
World Cup is going to fun is that blockade continues.
Very much so. There’s barely going to be enough hotel rooms in Qatar for the teams - the plan involved using other cities in the region as hubs, with lots of A380s running shuttle services to and from the matches.
Watching England is probably going to be either straight there and straight back, seven hours each way, or staged from somewhere like Turkey or Greece.
Quite a day trip for 90 mins of footy. I love my live sports, but I think I will pass on that one.
Indeed. There’s definitely a lot of people hoping for a resolution to the political problems before the WC.
I’m sure 10 days in Dubai, with 45 minute flights to Qatar on match days for the group stages, would be preferable to fans of most teams.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
A time limit on the backstop is the only way. We shouldnt even be needing the backstop, never mind a time limited one. To go to the wire for that might be the greatest collective diplomatic failure since the second world war.
We will not forget a No Deal, and a close future relationship will be nothing but a remote possibility.
Yup. Big political match, the only Qataris in the UAE are the team, still no direct flights between the two countries.
World Cup is going to fun is that blockade continues.
Very much so. There’s barely going to be enough hotel rooms in Qatar for the teams - the plan involved using other cities in the region as hubs, with lots of A380s running shuttle services to and from the matches.
Watching England is probably going to be either straight there and straight back, seven hours each way, or staged from somewhere like Turkey or Greece.
Quite a day trip for 90 mins of footy. I love my live sports, but I think I will pass on that one.
My son and fiancé went there over Christmas. They enjoyed the helicopter trip around The Grand Canyon and testing the weightless room (by way of a massive up-draft). The shows might have been a little old-fashioned for them, Is Dean Martin still around? And they gave the mob museum a miss.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
Although it is entirely reasonable for one side to say 'That is it, no more negotiation.' And the other side to say 'We disagree and we want to change a. b, and c.' Those two positions are indistinguishable, and quite compatible in negotiations.
One or more side side may say to themselves, 'we don't believe you when you say that there are no more negotiations. Lets look at history, you always do last minute deals.' or 'no need to move any more, we have them where we want them'
Both sides may be almost any combination of: right, wrong, deluded, truthful, honest, liars, duplicitous, gaming, testing or bullying.
If you believe all or most of the information either side distribute you are at risk of having the title Gullible or Sycophant attached to you.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
Not just the ERG, of course.
But once the blame game has been played, what happens then? We're in the deepest doggy-do and in an even weaker position than we are now, aren't we? There is going to be a reckoning at some point and it is not going to be pleasant.
Oh, certainly, Since 2016 the UK has consistently gone for the worst of whatever options were available. We should have welcomed Cameron's renegotiation. We should have voted to Remain. Having voted to leave, we should have given Theresa May a mandate to implement it. We should never have got a hung parliament involved in trying to negotiate a complex transition. We should have welcomed the eventual deal, and promptly ratified it.
Collapsing into a no-deal exit is completely unthinkable, and yet we may do it. There will be plenty of blame to throw around, and plenty of targets at which to throw it with justification.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
You called it. It is just about the blame game. The Brady amendment is a device to go to the EU, ask for something impossible, get rejected and blame them. That's it.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
No, if it's no deal, it will be because Labour, the LibDems and the SNP walked though the lobbies with Jacob Rees-Mogg and Steve Baker to reject the deal which the EU had agreed. It's as simple as that.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
The voters (en masse) wont care. They'll see which party was in charge, which party has campaigned for Brexit for decades, and which party failed to get an agreement, and which party had unhinged MPs on the news every day telling us it's all scaremongering, and we should just buck up, get some fighting spirit.
It's Labour in the 80s territory.
Yes, probably. That will be one more catastrophic mistake to add to the list.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
A time limit on the backstop is the only way. We shouldnt even be needing the backstop, never mind a time limited one. To go to the wire for that might be the greatest collective diplomatic failure since the second world war.
We will not forget a No Deal, and a close future relationship will be nothing but a remote possibility.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
Yep, bring it on. And then what?
We are buggered, but it will bugger them also (to a lesser extent). I dont want a no deal, but the EU is not acting reasonably by expecting a backstop in perpetuity. A compromise or fudge is a crowning feature of most of what the EU does.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
I'm sure that's right. I can't see it passing without Labour support.
What does it matter, it was a unicorn anyway.
Maybe not, it could be a hook on which to hang a fudge, if both the EU and parliament are actually serious about avoiding no-deal. That's a big 'if', though.
Is the government serious about avoiding no deal? That's the big question. We will need them to budge at some point and stop going back to the deal - the one thing comprehensively defeated.
The EU tells us the deal on the table is the only one available. There is one way, and one way only, of leaving in an orderly fashion and that is the deal (or some slighly tweaked version of it if the EU play ball). So of course the government keeps pushing for it. The rest is absolute fantasy, unless we revoke Article 50, which looks political fantasy given the parliamentary numbers.
A time limit on the backstop is the only way. We shouldnt even be needing the backstop, never mind a time limited one. To go to the wire for that might be the greatest collective diplomatic failure since the second world war.
We will not forget a No Deal, and a close future relationship will be nothing but a remote possibility.
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
It is for the period of the backstop. Trapping a nation within a customs union which it will have no influence on is not leaving. Make the backstop time limited or we have no deal. That is going to be the outcome of the situation.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
Yep, bring it on. And then what?
We are buggered, but it will bugger them also (to a lesser extent). I dont want a no deal, but the EU is not acting reasonably by expecting a backstop in perpetuity. A compromise or fudge is a crowning feature of most of what the EU does.
So we are going to No Deal with no plan. Marvellous.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
Yep, bring it on. And then what?
We are buggered, but it will bugger them also (to a lesser extent). I dont want a no deal, but the EU is not acting reasonably by expecting a backstop in perpetuity. A compromise or fudge is a crowning feature of most of what the EU does.
Nah we are not buggered. It will be suboptimal but we will move on and so will they.
Probably very quickly to agreeing a fudge because that is better than no deal for everyone even if they're refusing to now.
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
Yep, bring it on. And then what?
And then we move on. Life goes on.
Move on to what? What is the plan to get us out of the deep hole we have dug for ourselves?
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
If the only thing that stops a deal happening is the refusal to not make the backstop a permanent feature of the agreement, then quite rightly the EU will be to blame.
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
Yep, bring it on. And then what?
We are buggered, but it will bugger them also (to a lesser extent). I dont want a no deal, but the EU is not acting reasonably by expecting a backstop in perpetuity. A compromise or fudge is a crowning feature of most of what the EU does.
So we are going to No Deal with no plan. Marvellous.
seemingly so, a total clusterfu*k thats going to at best cause significant short term misery.
Comments
I suspect it would be very much "welcome to my sweetie shop, what would you like?" if the Remainers etc had dragged her the other way. And given that looked for a fleeting moment like the direction of travel when she invited everyone else for tea and cake last week, I can see why they left the door open.
Is there any chance it wont pass?
I think there are more
Qatar 3 - 0 UAE 83’
It's not the Cooper amendment, she's a very naughty boy
That will lose.
https://twitter.com/GiveBloodNHS/status/1090268274237952000
Which vote will this be reflected in??
Closer to 200 - strap in for no deal or no Brexit + revolution.
I do wonder, though, if Labour are 'overacting' in this particular drama. Brexit is a Tory feast, soup to nuts, and they are in a terrible place with it, to the extent that it is hard to see a non-traumatic way out for them.
So, Labour, why not play it very very cool and passive? - keep opposing the 'tory brexit' and demanding a general election, stop it with all the alternatives and the amendments and the speeches, just allow the Tories to complete their hari kari.
It seems almost rude not to.
Watching England is probably going to be either straight there and straight back, seven hours each way, or staged from somewhere like Turkey or Greece.
This decision is extremely weird. I can only wonder if the accused has some serious life-shortening condition. And even then....
The Tories undoubtedly hope the EU will be blamed for No Deal. And maybe the EU will be. But it is not very clear how that actually helps us deal with a No Deal. So, what is the plan?
It is also pretty clear that when we do depart Ireland will not do anything to change the border. That will help Ireland, of course. But how does it help us? Our problems are not there, but elsewhere in all kinds of ways.
In short, a No Deal departure puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are now.
Wonderful!
So they seem compatible as a double act? - Or at least not incompatible?
Well, since negotiations are over, that's the only deal on the table. It's that or no-deal.
At some stage MPs voting against it need to take responsibility - they are essentially voting for no deal.
We are heading for May's no deal. She refused to compromise, she delayed and delayed until it was too late.
At least the ERG are honest about it.
There is a deal on the table.
If we are heading for no-deal then it is a remainers no-deal.
Certainly not the best time to have both a dreadful PM and dreadful Leader of the Opposition.
And my sense is - this is creeping up on me - that TM, push to shove, will be prepared to preside over a no deal exit if she cannot get anything passed.
"I tried, my people. I tried and tried to get a deal through. It was not possible due to (insert those to blame). But we must, as I have always said, respect the 2016 referendum result and leave the European Union. Brexit means Brexit."
They screwed down a deal, used their unity to give us a punishment beating. And the British Parliament said no. Too cocky by half.
Bring it on.
But once the blame game has been played, what happens then? We're in the deepest doggy-do and in an even weaker position than we are now, aren't we? There is going to be a reckoning at some point and it is not going to be pleasant.
Honestly, the plans are getting less realistic not more.
I oppose this deal because I think no deal is better than a bad deal. If you genuinely think that no deal is worse than this deal then the answer is to back this deal.
Nothing stops Labour winning the next election on a pledge to join a permanent customs union.
It's Labour in the 80s territory.
We will not forget a No Deal, and a close future relationship will be nothing but a remote possibility.
In Britain, if we are to believe supporters of the PM, the buck not only doesn't stop at No10, it has never been to no10.
May's first and only job was to find a deal agreeable to the UK and EU, whatever happens next she will be judged on that. The buck stops with her.
I’m sure 10 days in Dubai, with 45 minute flights to Qatar on match days for the group stages, would be preferable to fans of most teams.
My son and fiancé went there over Christmas. They enjoyed the helicopter trip around The Grand Canyon and testing the weightless room (by way of a massive up-draft). The shows might have been a little old-fashioned for them, Is Dean Martin still around? And they gave the mob museum a miss.
One or more side side may say to themselves, 'we don't believe you when you say that there are no more negotiations. Lets look at history, you always do last minute deals.' or 'no need to move any more, we have them where we want them'
Both sides may be almost any combination of:
right, wrong, deluded, truthful, honest, liars, duplicitous, gaming, testing or bullying.
If you believe all or most of the information either side distribute you are at risk of having the title Gullible or Sycophant attached to you.
Collapsing into a no-deal exit is completely unthinkable, and yet we may do it. There will be plenty of blame to throw around, and plenty of targets at which to throw it with justification.
He really is poor and doesn't like inteventions as he cannot think on his feet.
Looking at the benches behind him there are so many labour mps who would give labour credibility
I was referring to the new 'managed no deal but also a soft brexit' proposal that has apparently united Nicky Morgan and Stevie Baker.
Sounds on the face of it very exciting. Hoping and praying it's not a unicorn. It's not a unicorn, is it?
* One could say she is very trying.
Dare I suggest that maybe this discussion should have taken place a year ago?
Probably very quickly to agreeing a fudge because that is better than no deal for everyone even if they're refusing to now.