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?
Same as any hole we ever have. We got through the financial crisis. This isn't going to be some End of Days Armageddon.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
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?
It does appear to be uniting the Conservatives bar a couple of diehards on either side, and the DUP are also on board.
Dare I suggest that maybe this discussion should have taken place a year ago?
Um, but what difference would that have made? Didn't we already go to Brussels with various options to replace the backstop and the compromise we ended up with is having it apply to the whole UK so that we avoid an Irish Sea border?
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if you are an ERP member who believes in unicorns..
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
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.
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
We ratify the other 99% of the deal they unilaterally wrote including £39 billion of payments.
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?
Same as any hole we ever have. We got through the financial crisis. This isn't going to be some End of Days Armageddon.
No, not for you, not for me. But for many people it is going to be hugely, permanently and negatively disruptive. The world got through the financial crisis. We did not do it on our own.
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
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?
Same as any hole we ever have. We got through the financial crisis. This isn't going to be some End of Days Armageddon.
No, not for you, not for me. But for many people it is going to be hugely, permanently and negatively disruptive. The world got through the financial crisis. We did not do it on our own.
Indeed. We worked with America and many other nations. Same as we will post Brexit.
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.
So we'll see tonight if May has yet another problem - she can't even arrange to get herself humiliated properly ...
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
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?
Same as any hole we ever have. We got through the financial crisis. This isn't going to be some End of Days Armageddon.
No, not for you, not for me. But for many people it is going to be hugely, permanently and negatively disruptive. The world got through the financial crisis. We did not do it on our own.
Indeed. We worked with America and many other nations. Same as we will post Brexit.
Brexit doesn't mean isolation.
No Deal does. Good luck getting cooperation with the US past the Irish American lobby.
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?
It does appear to be uniting the Conservatives bar a couple of diehards on either side, and the DUP are also on board.
Dare I suggest that maybe this discussion should have taken place a year ago?
Dare I suggets that these discussions only take place when people start crapping themselves.... So five minutes to midnight is invariably when the starting gun gets fired....
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
We ratify the other 99% of the deal they unilaterally wrote including £39 billion of payments.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
We ratify the other 99% of the deal they unilaterally wrote including £39 billion of payments.
Nothing is agreed till everything is agreed.
Precisely. If we can agree a change to the backstop that gives the EU everything else in the deal and not nothing. Having no deal doesn't just cost the EU the backstop it costs them £39 billion and everything else they gain from the deal.
Assuming Brady passes. Assuming the EU agrees to re-open negotiations. Assuming the backstop is dropped. Lots there I know, but bear with me. What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP? Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel? Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
We ratify the other 99% of the deal they unilaterally wrote including £39 billion of payments.
Nothing is agreed till everything is agreed.
Precisely. If we can agree a change to the backstop that gives the EU everything else in the deal and not nothing. Having no deal doesn't just cost the EU the backstop it costs them £39 billion and everything else they gain from the deal.
Rational negotiators would of course accept this position as the best they are going to get.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
Your faith in people shrugging their shoulders and accepting lower living standards and even worse public services is touching, but I suspect misplaced.
Hmm. So it transpires you can't put a cigarette paper between the Trump administration's attitude to Britain in the EU and that of Obama's. Bit of a blow for those Leavers who'd convinced themselves Donald was their man. (He'll be telling us to join the back of the queue next.)
Hopefuly in the context of get a sat nav and find another route. This really is tediously petty and pathetic.
Do they cancel blood donations whenever the French dockers go on strike, or do we instead have a well-practiced system in place to stack lorries waiting to cross the channel, in a way that keeps roads into coastal towns open to local traffic?
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
the shock factor is lessening by the day as our MPs screw up legislation
expectation are different than they were 6 months ago
Hmm. So it transpires you can't put a cigarette paper between the Trump administration's attitude to Britain in the EU and that of Obama's. Bit of a blow for those Leavers who'd convinced themselves Donald was their man. (He'll be telling us to join the back of the queue next.)
or on the other hand it looks even worse for Europhiles to be seeking warm words from the Trump administration
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
That's what the defenders of the Venezuelan regime say.
Same as any hole we ever have. We got through the financial crisis. This isn't going to be some End of Days Armageddon.
The financial crisis was enormously damaging. Sure we 'got through it' - of course we did, we got through the blitz - but we are nothing like recovered from it all of a decade later.
Personally, for negative and lasting impact on the UK, I don't think a no deal brexit will come close to the banking crash.
It's worth pointing out that the EU aren't simply being inflexible for the sake of it. The problem is that (as I warned would happen, immediately after the disastrous result of the 2017 GE), even if they are more flexible, they can't rely on the UK delivering on any compromise. They are quite explicit about this difficulty, and it's hard to disagree with them:
But EU officials and diplomats said the Brady amendment, even if heavily supported in the Commons, was too vague for the EU’s heads of state of government to be confident that one particular course of action would receive the full support of parliament for a deal.
Sources additionally said the EU’s most senior officials – Juncker, and Donald Tusk, the president of the European council – continued to believe nothing could be reasonably done to win round the Democratic Unionist party and the European Research Group of anti-EU Tory MPs, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg.
That position was reiterated on Monday by the EU’s deputy chief negotiator, Sabine Weyand. “We need to have a majority that doesn’t just get agreement over hurdle of a meaningful vote by a narrow majority but we need to have a stable majority to ensure the ratification,” she said. “That’s quite a big challenge. There’s no negotiation between the UK and EU – that’s finished.”
The EU didn't come back to the table after the last defeat. Shuffling around with Brady is unlikely to bring them back now.
Such willing suspension of disbelief by those who advocate a time limited backstop.
I maintain that there will be a deal. That said the latest from May (considering one of three impossible options) is deeply perplexing.
Seems to me Brady is just a stunt to allow the tabloids to end up laying all the blame at the feet of the EU for the No Deal chaos and lack of food and meds.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
That's what the defenders of the Venezuelan regime say.
They have a similar attitude to the health benefits of food shortages too.
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.
But that isn't quite true either.
Parliament has four choices: Revoke, Deal, No Deal or 2nd Referendum The country has only three (those noted above)
That's it.
And if Parliament don't decide by 29th March, then they get No Deal.
Anything else (extension or different deal) relies on the EU doing something they've consistently said they won't do/agree to.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
That's what the defenders of the Venezuelan regime say.
They have a similar attitude to the health benefits of food shortages too.
you forgot that there will be no foodbanks since there's no food
Hmm. So it transpires you can't put a cigarette paper between the Trump administration's attitude to Britain in the EU and that of Obama's. Bit of a blow for those Leavers who'd convinced themselves Donald was their man. (He'll be telling us to join the back of the queue next.)
Common sense really. It is why Putin is so keen on Brexit. It is why he put so much effort into influencing social media, but of course that had no impact what-so-ever on the super intelligent beings that voted Leave, they couldn't possibly be influenced could they?
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.
But the backstop is not supposed to be in perpetuity. It’s supposed to be until the Brexiteers can pull their “technological solution” to the Irish border out of their pet unicorn’s arse. The fact that no Leaver seems to have any confidence that that will happen and so complain about a “perpetual” backstop speaks volumes.
Hopefuly in the context of get a sat nav and find another route. This really is tediously petty and pathetic.
Do they cancel blood donations whenever the French dockers go on strike, or do we instead have a well-practiced system in place to stack lorries waiting to cross the channel, in a way that keeps roads into coastal towns open to local traffic?
I stopped giving blood a few years ago. Unless you're able to book an appointment three months in advance, they really don't want your blood.
The EU didn't come back to the table after the last defeat. Shuffling around with Brady is unlikely to bring them back now.
Such willing suspension of disbelief by those who advocate a time limited backstop.
I maintain that there will be a deal. That said the latest from May (considering one of three impossible options) is deeply perplexing.
Seems to me Brady is just a stunt to allow the tabloids to end up laying all the blame at the feet of the EU for the No Deal chaos and lack of food and meds.
Yep - it's all about the blame game now. Not that it helps us actually deal with the shit-storm No Deal will be.
It's worth pointing out that the EU aren't simply being inflexible for the sake of it. The problem is that (as I warned would happen, immediately after the disastrous result of the 2017 GE), even if they are more flexible, they can't rely on the UK delivering on any compromise. They are quite explicit about this difficulty, and it's hard to disagree with them
The point of the backstop is to ensure that NI stays either in the SM and CU forever, or that it remains so closely aligned as to be practically indistinguishable, whatever the rUK does.
There is no wording that will change that fundamental reality. Even if by some miracle the EU agreed to reopen the WA, they'd still demand a guarantee of the de facto if not de jure regulatory and customs annexation of NI. And the ERG and the DUP could rightly never accept that.
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Can't see the Brady amendment passing. The Labour leavers (Flint, Spellar etc) some point are going to have to decide what amendment they can support because at the moment they look like the ones who hold all the aces. I'm not quite sure what other than party loyalty is stopping them supporting Brady because it seems to be the most sane approach out there.
The EU didn't come back to the table after the last defeat. Shuffling around with Brady is unlikely to bring them back now.
Such willing suspension of disbelief by those who advocate a time limited backstop.
I maintain that there will be a deal. That said the latest from May (considering one of three impossible options) is deeply perplexing.
Seems to me Brady is just a stunt to allow the tabloids to end up laying all the blame at the feet of the EU for the No Deal chaos and lack of food and meds.
Yep - it's all about the blame game now. Not that it helps us actually deal with the shit-storm No Deal will be.
Victimhood is all part of the psychosis of nationalism. Blame others, sew further division, keep the spiral of hate running as much as possible. Putin is an expert at it. Oh, did I mention Putin again, the Leaver's friend, supporter and benefactor?
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.
But the backstop is not supposed to be in perpetuity. It’s supposed to be until the Brexiteers can pull their “technological solution” to the Irish border out of their pet unicorn’s arse. The fact that no Leaver seems to have any confidence that that will happen and so complain about a “perpetual” backstop speaks volumes.
We want to leave so that we can negotiate free trade deals but have zero confidence we can negotiate free trade deals.
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Varadkar has simply painted himself in to a corner
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
It's worth pointing out that the EU aren't simply being inflexible for the sake of it. The problem is that (as I warned would happen, immediately after the disastrous result of the 2017 GE), even if they are more flexible, they can't rely on the UK delivering on any compromise. They are quite explicit about this difficulty, and it's hard to disagree with them:
But EU officials and diplomats said the Brady amendment, even if heavily supported in the Commons, was too vague for the EU’s heads of state of government to be confident that one particular course of action would receive the full support of parliament for a deal.
Sources additionally said the EU’s most senior officials – Juncker, and Donald Tusk, the president of the European council – continued to believe nothing could be reasonably done to win round the Democratic Unionist party and the European Research Group of anti-EU Tory MPs, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg.
That position was reiterated on Monday by the EU’s deputy chief negotiator, Sabine Weyand. “We need to have a majority that doesn’t just get agreement over hurdle of a meaningful vote by a narrow majority but we need to have a stable majority to ensure the ratification,” she said. “That’s quite a big challenge. There’s no negotiation between the UK and EU – that’s finished.”
Exactly. What little trust the EU may have had in TM as a negotiating partner will have been destroyed by her behaviour today. If she can trash a deal she recommended as the only practical way forward less than a fortnight ago why on earth would they believe she could deliver on anything else that they might offer?
Exactly. What little trust the EU may have had in TM as a negotiating partner will have been destroyed by her behaviour today. If she can trash a deal she recommended as the only practical way forward less than a fortnight ago why on earth would they believe she could deliver on anything else that they might offer?
It's not her behaviour that is the problem. She has negotiated and concluded a written agreement satisfactory to the EU and to the UK government.
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Varadkar has simply painted himself in to a corner
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
really he should have settled back in Septmeber
Settled for what? There's nothing he could have done to get the withdrawal agreement through the House of Commons.
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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
That's what the defenders of the Venezuelan regime say.
They have a similar attitude to the health benefits of food shortages too.
you forgot that there will be no foodbanks since there's no food
There will be. Dogs, cats, mice, rats, wild fungus.
Can't see the Brady amendment passing. The Labour leavers (Flint, Spellar etc) some point are going to have to decide what amendment they can support because at the moment they look like the ones who hold all the aces. I'm not quite sure what other than party loyalty is stopping them supporting Brady because it seems to be the most sane approach out there.
Going back to renegotiate a deal you designed in the first place is a sane approach?
Can't see the Brady amendment passing. The Labour leavers (Flint, Spellar etc) some point are going to have to decide what amendment they can support because at the moment they look like the ones who hold all the aces. I'm not quite sure what other than party loyalty is stopping them supporting Brady because it seems to be the most sane approach out there.
Market agrees with you - it thinks that Cooper will pass but Brady will not.
Hopefuly in the context of get a sat nav and find another route. This really is tediously petty and pathetic.
Do they cancel blood donations whenever the French dockers go on strike, or do we instead have a well-practiced system in place to stack lorries waiting to cross the channel, in a way that keeps roads into coastal towns open to local traffic?
I stopped giving blood a few years ago. Unless you're able to book an appointment three months in advance, they really don't want your blood.
Really, you have to book an appointment to give blood these days?
Clearly they must have more than enough of the stuff to go around, otherwise they’d be bending over backwards to accommodate anyone who wished to attend.
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.
But the backstop is not supposed to be in perpetuity. It’s supposed to be until the Brexiteers can pull their “technological solution” to the Irish border out of their pet unicorn’s arse. The fact that no Leaver seems to have any confidence that that will happen and so complain about a “perpetual” backstop speaks volumes.
We want to leave so that we can negotiate free trade deals but have zero confidence we can negotiate free trade deals.
"What's this about wanting to be a free trading nation Britain?" "I want to have free trade deals" "But you can't have free trade deals" "Don't you oppress me"
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 oe 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.
You want to bet? No Deal puts us in an even weaker negotiating position than we are in already.
Not if it removes the permanent backstop it doesn't. And the longer we stay in a no deal scenario the more normalised and less damaging it will be.
Good luck with that!!
It's true. The biggest risk of no deal is the sudden shock.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
That's what the defenders of the Venezuelan regime say.
They have a similar attitude to the health benefits of food shortages too.
you forgot that there will be no foodbanks since there's no food
There will be. Dogs, cats, mice, rats, wild fungus.
no, not even grass since we import that from the EU
Can't see the Brady amendment passing. The Labour leavers (Flint, Spellar etc) some point are going to have to decide what amendment they can support because at the moment they look like the ones who hold all the aces. I'm not quite sure what other than party loyalty is stopping them supporting Brady because it seems to be the most sane approach out there.
Going back to renegotiate a deal you designed in the first place is a sane approach?
It's saner than kicking the can down the road and not even looking for compromise surely? In what way is Cooper's helping to agree any sort of deal? I would say her motion is destructive in almost every way. At least if Brady were to pass you'd know what it would take for a deal to be struck, Merkel would take a much longer look at any new proposals than a quoted EU 'spokesperson.'
The point of the backstop is to ensure that NI stays either in the SM and CU forever, or that it remains so closely aligned as to be practically indistinguishable, whatever the rUK does.
There is no wording that will change that fundamental reality. Even if by some miracle the EU agreed to reopen the WA, they'd still demand a guarantee of the de facto if not de jure regulatory and customs annexation of NI. And the ERG and the DUP could rightly never accept that.
But the ERG know for an almost fact that a high-tech solution for the border will be possible.
So why not unblock the exit hatch from the dungeon, scramble out of there, and then get cracking on delivering that?
Exactly. What little trust the EU may have had in TM as a negotiating partner will have been destroyed by her behaviour today. If she can trash a deal she recommended as the only practical way forward less than a fortnight ago why on earth would they believe she could deliver on anything else that they might offer?
It's not her behaviour that is the problem. She has negotiated and concluded a written agreement satisfactory to the EU and to the UK government.
Also Barnier had multiple meetings with Corbyn et al, so he should have asked them the question of "what will you agree and what are your red lines?"
The WDA not getting approval by MP's should be no surprise to the EU and member countries.
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Varadkar has simply painted himself in to a corner
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
really he should have settled back in Septmeber
Settled for what? There's nothing he could have done to get the withdrawal agreement through the House of Commons.
I pointed out over a year ago varadkar could have sorted the whole thing out quietly with a UK RoI working group and avoided the grief, but he didnt
In defence of Theresa May (words that come as an unexpected and refreshing surprise to my fingertips), she has taken account of the crushing defeat that the deal faced two weeks ago and come up with something that is aimed at salvaging something consistent with leaving the EU with a deal, even if it is heavily odds against. I don't think she's gone about it the right way but she has at least tried something.
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Varadkar has simply painted himself in to a corner
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
really he should have settled back in Septmeber
He has a very, very easy way out. Unfortunately, we do not.
Thanks for tweeting the views of blogger Ian Dunt. Really useful. Lol.
Dun't matter what Ian thinks
I think he must be Scott P's best mate. You might as well quote the Brexit girl who wears a cape or one of the yellow vests for all the nonsense Dunt talks.
Exactly. What little trust the EU may have had in TM as a negotiating partner will have been destroyed by her behaviour today. If she can trash a deal she recommended as the only practical way forward less than a fortnight ago why on earth would they believe she could deliver on anything else that they might offer?
It's not her behaviour that is the problem. She has negotiated and concluded a written agreement satisfactory to the EU and to the UK government.
Yep - parliament is acting like some jumped up in house lawyer/corporate purchasing department demanding a change to the Ts and Cs of a contract after you thought you'd signed it.
The point of the backstop is to ensure that NI stays either in the SM and CU forever, or that it remains so closely aligned as to be practically indistinguishable, whatever the rUK does.
There is no wording that will change that fundamental reality. Even if by some miracle the EU agreed to reopen the WA, they'd still demand a guarantee of the de facto if not de jure regulatory and customs annexation of NI. And the ERG and the DUP could rightly never accept that.
But the ERG know for an almost fact that a high-tech solution for the border will be possible.
So why not unblock the exit hatch from the dungeon, scramble out of there, and then get cracking on delivering that?
If they know there is a high tech solution (which surprises me as none of them strike me as exactly being up to date on tech), then why do they have a problem with the backstop? If the tech solution is coming they have nothing to fear form it. It is either because they are thick (likely), deliberately disingenuous (very likely) or both (ever closer likely).
It's pretty clear that the Irish will not do anything to disrupt the border after No Deal. It is also pretty obvious why they would not say this in advance.
Varadkar has simply painted himself in to a corner
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
really he should have settled back in Septmeber
He has a very, very easy way out. Unfortunately, we do not.
he no longer has , If he holds his position he;ll get thumped for any disruption, if he changes hell get thumped by FF and SF
The point of the backstop is to ensure that NI stays either in the SM and CU forever, or that it remains so closely aligned as to be practically indistinguishable, whatever the rUK does.
There is no wording that will change that fundamental reality. Even if by some miracle the EU agreed to reopen the WA, they'd still demand a guarantee of the de facto if not de jure regulatory and customs annexation of NI. And the ERG and the DUP could rightly never accept that.
But the ERG know for an almost fact that a high-tech solution for the border will be possible.
So why not unblock the exit hatch from the dungeon, scramble out of there, and then get cracking on delivering that?
The high tech solution requires electronic customs declarations and checks but away from the border. It is Varadkar that has said he will not even accept electronic customs declarations, to him nothing must change. It is impossible to have exactly the same procedure as now, unless the UK is in the SM and CU.
Comments
What SPECIFIC quid pro quo is the UK prepared to offer for this? Fish,more money, Gibraltar? What, if anything at all will be acceptable to the ERG DUP?
Or will Johnny Foreigner flee with his tail between his legs when we show them some steel?
Because if we are unwilling or unable to offer anything at all, then this whole charade is pointless, regardless of the EUs attitude.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/29/dominos-pizzas-record-uk-sales-profits
Probably washed down with Lambrini ....
Oh, fuck...
A backstop that lasts for, say, 3 years is a backstop that lasts for 3 years. Do not see a problem with the language of that.
However, a backstop that one side can exit unilaterally - THAT is not a backstop.
Now where is my tin foil hat when I need it?
Brexit doesn't mean isolation.
There does seem to be a momentum towards a coalescence around a compromise.
Clearly the headbangers on the Tory backbenches (Grieve, Soubry, JRM etc) will never reconcile themselves to respecting the referendum result.
However, the bulk of remainers in parliament will hopefully see that their road is running out.
As time goes by the shock will wear off. It will be our new normal just as Canada and USA being separate nations is normal.
https://twitter.com/Claire_Phipps/status/1090290057490165762
Let's hope they have shared this Earth-shattering assessment with Brussels....
Rational ones.
https://twitter.com/PimlicoPlumbers/status/1090288845013372929
expectation are different than they were 6 months ago
Or has it got a bit cold for them?
When, oh when, are Labour party members going to wake up?
Such willing suspension of disbelief by those who advocate a time limited backstop.
I maintain that there will be a deal. That said the latest from May (considering one of three impossible options) is deeply perplexing.
Personally, for negative and lasting impact on the UK, I don't think a no deal brexit will come close to the banking crash.
But EU officials and diplomats said the Brady amendment, even if heavily supported in the Commons, was too vague for the EU’s heads of state of government to be confident that one particular course of action would receive the full support of parliament for a deal.
Sources additionally said the EU’s most senior officials – Juncker, and Donald Tusk, the president of the European council – continued to believe nothing could be reasonably done to win round the Democratic Unionist party and the European Research Group of anti-EU Tory MPs, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg.
That position was reiterated on Monday by the EU’s deputy chief negotiator, Sabine Weyand. “We need to have a majority that doesn’t just get agreement over hurdle of a meaningful vote by a narrow majority but we need to have a stable majority to ensure the ratification,” she said. “That’s quite a big challenge. There’s no negotiation between the UK and EU – that’s finished.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/29/eu-rule-out-brexit-renegotiation-brady-amendment-pass
Parliament has four choices:
Revoke, Deal, No Deal or 2nd Referendum
The country has only three (those noted above)
That's it.
And if Parliament don't decide by 29th March, then they get No Deal.
Anything else (extension or different deal) relies on the EU doing something they've consistently said they won't do/agree to.
Project O Fear
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/we-will-need-a-lot-of-money-to-save-peoples-jobs-varadkar-issues-harshest-warning-over-hard-brexit-37761491.html
Where is the new invention that allows a new way of handling the border? Has it been invented since Chequers?
Stalin helped teach Kaganovich to improve his literacy.
That doesn't make parsnips or reading evil.
Those will be the markets in London then.... Another silver lining to No Deal Brexit.
There is no wording that will change that fundamental reality. Even if by some miracle the EU agreed to reopen the WA, they'd still demand a guarantee of the de facto if not de jure regulatory and customs annexation of NI. And the ERG and the DUP could rightly never accept that.
Whadda we want? ... A smooth and orderly exit from the European Union!
When do we wannit? ... March 29th ideally, but any time this year will do.
So, a hint of compromise there.
hes now starting to get pressure at home from all sides
really he should have settled back in Septmeber
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1090277635584860161
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090295396050579456
Clearly they must have more than enough of the stuff to go around, otherwise they’d be bending over backwards to accommodate anyone who wished to attend.
"I want to have free trade deals"
"But you can't have free trade deals"
"Don't you oppress me"
So why not unblock the exit hatch from the dungeon, scramble out of there, and then get cracking on delivering that?
The WDA not getting approval by MP's should be no surprise to the EU and member countries.
heart of stone etc.
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1090297097096753158
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
That they are so keen to strangle it at birth is informative.