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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
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.
Wrong again. There are plenty of Leavers who accept the backstop for the very reason you state.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
Mr Alanbrooke is very very disparaging about Mr Varadkar. I wonder why he dislikes him so?
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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
No thats just you wishful thinking and for me the issue isnt just about the backstop its all the other needless shit varadkar stirred up for his own poitical ends. Idiots never grasp that theres no gain to be had by playing the stir up Ulster card.
If Remainers really thought the Brady approach had no chance of moving the EU towards Brexit they would abstain and let the EU turn it down.
That they are so keen to strangle it at birth is informative.
Completely agree. Parliament is stuck for a way forward, and Brady amendment is close to offering a majority opinion. There is every chance that the EU might renegotiate the backstop as we get closer to the exit date. Some of those remain supporters who claim they don't want to 'thwart Brexit' will be rather exposed tonight. Not that Brady losing gets us anywhere.
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.
Worth a pitcher of warm piss though, when it CLEARLY wasn't going to get through the House.....
I reached an agreement with my mate Jason that we were going to share conjugal rights with Margot Robbie. Which was going great - until we approached Margot about our deal......
Hatton's daughters go to gymkhanas so he owns a horsebox. Not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility.
And didn't he dabble in property speculation? I don't mind champagne socialists - perhaps because I am one - but with Hatton I have never been convinced of the depth of his belief in or commitment to The Cause. Always struck me as being a man on the make, more concerned with making an impact rather than the nature of the impact being made.
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.
Unless I've missed something it isn't their choice, as the EU has made clear.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
they will hammer him if he does make chamges since he has gone to town on the matter
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
No thats just you wishful thinking and for me the issue isnt just about the backstop its all the other needless shit varadkar stirred up for his own poitical ends. Idiots never grasp that theres no gain to be had by playing the stir up Ulster card.
Then the person you should really be angry at is Theresa May. If she hadn't pulled the "precious union" "unstoppable force" stuff before invoking Article 50 and had said there'd need to be a special solution for Northern Ireland, none of this mess would have happened. She stirred it up to try to leverage Northern Ireland into getting single market access without freedom of movement for the UK.
Thanks for tweeting the views of blogger Ian Dunt. Really useful. Lol.
Dunt is truly thick. As those two tweets prove.
There seems no hard evidence that he is thick. He does oppose Brexit, which you don't agree with, but that doesn't make him thick. Corbyn is thick. Mark Francois is thick. The evidence is strong for both of these. You might not like Dunt, and he has an amusing surname that rhymes with another amusing word, but he does not appear to be without intellect
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
No thats just you wishful thinking and for me the issue isnt just about the backstop its all the other needless shit varadkar stirred up for his own poitical ends. Idiots never grasp that theres no gain to be had by playing the stir up Ulster card.
Then the person you should really be angry at is Theresa May. If she hadn't pulled the "precious union" "unstoppable force" stuff before invoking Article 50 and had said there'd need to be a special solution for Northern Ireland, none of this mess would have happened. She stirred it up to try to leverage Northern Ireland into getting single market access without freedom of movement for the UK.
Why pick on TM the whole politcal establishments on the UK and EU side have shown themselves to be incapable of thinking about their electors well being, She is just one screwer upper in a crowd of similarly talented people.
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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
No thats just you wishful thinking and for me the issue isnt just about the backstop its all the other needless shit varadkar stirred up for his own poitical ends. Idiots never grasp that theres no gain to be had by playing the stir up Ulster card.
Then the person you should really be angry at is Theresa May. If she hadn't pulled the "precious union" "unstoppable force" stuff before invoking Article 50 and had said there'd need to be a special solution for Northern Ireland, none of this mess would have happened. She stirred it up to try to leverage Northern Ireland into getting single market access without freedom of movement for the UK.
Why pick on TM the whole politcal establishments on the UK and EU side have shown themselves to be incapable of thinking about their electors well being, She is just one screwer upper in a crowd of similarly talented people.
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
Mr Alanbrooke is very very disparaging about Mr Varadkar. I wonder why he dislikes him so?
I suppose gay Irish Indians are never going to be popular in all quarters.
I have wondered whether the venom that gets spat in his direction is always for purely political reasons.
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.
Right. But LV is a here today gone tomorrow politician. If I was a hard brexit tory MP I would take the long view. I would seize this chance to leave the EU - a chance that may not come again - and then I would agitate in the years to come for meaningful divergence.
Thanks for tweeting the views of blogger Ian Dunt. Really useful. Lol.
Dunt is truly thick. As those two tweets prove.
There seems no hard evidence that he is thick. He does oppose Brexit, which you don't agree with, but that doesn't make him thick. Corbyn is thick. Mark Francois is thick. The evidence is strong for both of these. You might not like Dunt, and he has an amusing surname that rhymes with another amusing word, but he does not appear to be without intellect
Dunt is clearly thick with all due respect. You don't get serious journalists quoting him, no one visits his blog/website and he exists almost solely on twitter thanks to his 500 tweets a day. The fact that no one outside his twitter followers knows him or takes him seriously tells you enough.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
they will hammer him if he does make chamges since he has gone to town on the matter
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
He can just leave the border as is. Why would FF and SF hammer him if he does? They would do exactly the same.
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
heart of stone etc.
But you were wrong. Even if the EU had allowed such an approach to proceed and we'd ended up with a withdrawal agreement without a legal backstop, it still wouldn't have got through the HoC.
No thats just you wishful thinking and for me the issue isnt just about the backstop its all the other needless shit varadkar stirred up for his own poitical ends. Idiots never grasp that theres no gain to be had by playing the stir up Ulster card.
Then the person you should really be angry at is Theresa May. If she hadn't pulled the "precious union" "unstoppable force" stuff before invoking Article 50 and had said there'd need to be a special solution for Northern Ireland, none of this mess would have happened. She stirred it up to try to leverage Northern Ireland into getting single market access without freedom of movement for the UK.
Why pick on TM the whole politcal establishments on the UK and EU side have shown themselves to be incapable of thinking about their electors well being, She is just one screwer upper in a crowd of similarly talented people.
Fair comment, but the buck stops with her.
only in your head. Re NI Varadkar is the man on the spot and people in Ireland will have to live with his miscalculations. Westminster and Brussels will simply forget about the place when the caravan moves on.
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.
Unless I've missed something it isn't their choice, as the EU has made clear.
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
Well at least we know where we stand with Grieve. He'll vote down anything. I suspect the same of 2 or 3 other Tories (Wollaston, Soubry), but for the bulk of Tory remainers it's comments like this that should remind them to keep their distance from Grieve and work towards a compromise in the National Interest rather than their personal interest.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
they will hammer him if he does make chamges since he has gone to town on the matter
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
He can just leave the border as is. Why would FF and SF hammer him if he does? They would do exactly the same.
Last week he was told he cant leave the border as is and promptly announced the police and army would be deployed.
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.
You only need a backstop because the EU insists on it. Their refusal to move from the unacceptable means they are to blame as much as the U.K.
If Ireland really doesn’t intend to put up a border in a no deal situation it is a ludicrous position for the EU to adopt
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
they will hammer him if he does make chamges since he has gone to town on the matter
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
He can just leave the border as is. Why would FF and SF hammer him if he does? They would do exactly the same.
Not sure SF are noted for their happiness with the border as is.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
Mr Alanbrooke is very very disparaging about Mr Varadkar. I wonder why he dislikes him so?
I suppose gay Irish Indians are never going to be popular in all quarters.
I have wondered whether the venom that gets spat in his direction is always for purely political reasons.
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
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.
Settled for a compromise that both countries and all parties like the DUP could all agree to instead of trying to screw us for the maximum possible.
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
Well at least we know where we stand with Grieve. He'll vote down anything. I suspect the same of 2 or 3 other Tories (Wollaston, Soubry), but for the bulk of Tory remainers it's comments like this that should remind them to keep their distance from Grieve and work towards a compromise in the National Interest rather than their personal interest.
Would love to see copies of Grieve's 2017 election literature.....
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.
A fiancée at your age? Well done Sir!
(I was recently introduced to an 85 year old cousin’s 35 year old wife. He looked very pleased with himself. His 58 year old son next to him was less happy)
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.
Unless I've missed something it isn't their choice, as the EU has made clear.
What will the EU do?
Pressure Ireland into doing what it's told. Varadkar knows this hence the headless chicken routine when it dawned on him that he will be the face of an EU-imposed hard border.
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
Well at least we know where we stand with Grieve. He'll vote down anything. I suspect the same of 2 or 3 other Tories (Wollaston, Soubry), but for the bulk of Tory remainers it's comments like this that should remind them to keep their distance from Grieve and work towards a compromise in the National Interest rather than their personal interest.
Would love to see copies of Grieve's 2017 election literature.....
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
Well at least we know where we stand with Grieve. He'll vote down anything. I suspect the same of 2 or 3 other Tories (Wollaston, Soubry), but for the bulk of Tory remainers it's comments like this that should remind them to keep their distance from Grieve and work towards a compromise in the National Interest rather than their personal interest.
Would love to see copies of Grieve's 2017 election literature.....
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).
Is exactly what I am driving at. This one time opportunity to escape (forever) from the fetid embrace of the European Union, when this has been your life's work, the thing that has got you out of bed every morning since you were knee high to a grasshopper, must surely be taken. Once we are OUT, game on, agitate for meaningful divergence and time is on your side. You have years.
So I give you a 4th possibility - they are lazy. They want the prize but are not prepared to put the work in to get it. We all know the type.
Thanks for tweeting the views of blogger Ian Dunt. Really useful. Lol.
Dunt is truly thick. As those two tweets prove.
There seems no hard evidence that he is thick. He does oppose Brexit, which you don't agree with, but that doesn't make him thick. Corbyn is thick. Mark Francois is thick. The evidence is strong for both of these. You might not like Dunt, and he has an amusing surname that rhymes with another amusing word, but he does not appear to be without intellect
No he is thick because he draws illogical an unsustainable comparisons between positions and then is stupid enough to tweet them out so everyone can see how dumb he is. There are lots of Remainers who are not in any way dumb. Dunt is not one of them.
That can quote various secondary unnamed figures all they want. Doesn't mean it won't happen when push comes to shove.
So this is what has come down to for May and her band of supporters and sycophants. The certainty the EU will blink and allow the WA to be changed to get it through the Commons.
What if they don't blink? Perhaps May should blink instead - yield on the Customs Union and the backstop if she is so desperate to stay in office.
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).
Is exactly what I am driving at. This one time opportunity to escape (forever) from the fetid embrace of the European Union, when this has been your life's work, the thing that has got you out of bed every morning since you were knee high to a grasshopper, must surely be taken. Once we are OUT, game on, agitate for meaningful divergence and time is on your side. You have years.
So I give you a 4th possibility - they are lazy. They want the prize but are not prepared to put the work in to get it. We all know the type.
No, they are frightened. They know 2016 was a lucky fluke and they know that once the implications of leaving start to become evident in the real world, people will go off their project pretty quickly. And quite possibly dramatically. Hence they want to go for a big leap rather than the sensible gradual transition, and want to get beyond a point of no return before people start clamouring for that return.
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.
Seconded. She is on the verge of becoming under-rated.
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
And clearly not everyone falls into that, so in the absence of suggestion it is the case in a specific instance, it is perhaps unwise to just assume it.
I'm a remainer but fed up with Brexit.... and bored with Europe and still not obsessed... given all that, if this is true what Grieve has said then I think it's a poor show by him given where we are now:
Well at least we know where we stand with Grieve. He'll vote down anything. I suspect the same of 2 or 3 other Tories (Wollaston, Soubry), but for the bulk of Tory remainers it's comments like this that should remind them to keep their distance from Grieve and work towards a compromise in the National Interest rather than their personal interest.
Would love to see copies of Grieve's 2017 election literature.....
Some choice quotes from his Election Message on his website
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it."
"As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum."
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.
Seconded. She is on the verge of becoming under-rated.
Well I wouldn't go that far, but it is the case that she has made an effort and, at least sometimes, shift position in attempts to move things along. Sometimes cynically, but she does have more going for her than many of her opponents who act like it would be simple.
That can quote various secondary unnamed figures all they want. Doesn't mean it won't happen when push comes to shove.
So this is what has come down to for May and her band of supporters and sycophants. The certainty the EU will blink and allow the WA to be changed to get it through the Commons.
What if they don't blink? Perhaps May should blink instead - yield on the Customs Union and the backstop if she is so desperate to stay in office.
Renegotiation with a majority view is not a bad position to be in. As opposed to just trying to destroy every possible path like the ERG were or People's Vote supporters are. That's the headbanger approach.
Reading hizzoner's remarks today I see how he's argued the Huhne offence was more serious.
Huhne did it to avoid a ban, while Onasanya wouldn't have faced a ban had she accepted the points.
I fail to see how Huhne's is more serious.
If I steal because I'm hungry is that more serious than stealing because I'm simply stealing?
That Onasanya committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice without having her back against the wall facing a ban seems worse to me. It makes it more inexplicable.
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
There are also polls show most muslims oppose it ergo muslims voted for Brexit and are true Brits
No, they are frightened. They know 2016 was a lucky fluke and they know that once the implications of leaving start to become evident in the real world, people will go off their project pretty quickly. And quite possibly dramatically. Hence they want to go for a big leap rather than the sensible gradual transition, and want to get beyond a point of no return before people start clamouring for that return.
OK I will take that - a 5th possibility, frightened.
I suppose in reality it varies. Scared, lazy, deceitful, thick, deluded - one or more of these things depending on the individual.
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
And clearly not everyone falls into that, so in the absence of suggestion it is the case in a specific instance, it is perhaps unwise to just assume it.
I think those people just felt that same sex marriage shouldn't be compulsory.
Reading hizzoner's remarks today I see how he's argued the Huhne offence was more serious.
Huhne did it to avoid a ban, while Onasanya wouldn't have faced a ban had she accepted the points.
I fail to see how Huhne's is more serious.
If I steal because I'm hungry is that more serious than stealing because I'm simply stealing?
That Onasanya committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice without having her back against the wall facing a ban seems worse to me. It makes it more inexplicable.
Huhne effectively defrauded the insurance company/ies by letting them think he was allowed to drive when in fact he should have been banned.
Not an issue for the company/ies that insured Onasanya.
Her risk profile wouldn't have changed had she been given three points.
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
And clearly not everyone falls into that, so in the absence of suggestion it is the case in a specific instance, it is perhaps unwise to just assume it.
I think those people just felt that same sex marriage shouldn't be compulsory.
Wait, it wasn't supposed to be? I had to make such a life change when it came in when I thought it had to be!
That seems plenty enough reason without making inferences about people that they mean other than they say which, conveniently, also allows one to totally dismiss any points made as being ill motivated. Varadkar is the face of the EU on this point of contention, he is bound to be the focus of particular Ire, fairly or not.
There was a poll back in 2016 or 2017 that showed there was a strong correlation between supporting Brexit and being opposed to same sex marriage.
Aren't there similar polls regarding Muslim opposition to gays?
Letwin is brilliant. I thought he was going to burst into tears so great was his passion.
And he was able to answer all this nonsense about standing orders not being able to be changed.
He did that very well. Top marks - particularly considering that he voted for Mrs May's deal and will vote for it again no matter what. He knows from his previous responsibilities as a minister, the grave damage a no deal will do to the country and his party and he doesn't think Mrs May should risk it, even as a negotiating ploy.
My analogy is a person pointing a gun at their own head and threatening to pull the trigger and spatter the other side with blood if they don't get their own way. They are probably bluffing but they might not be, or might accidentally pull the trigger, particularly as some who are not in the line of fire are egging them on. Letwin believes it is reckless behaviour and not to be tolerated.
Reading hizzoner's remarks today I see how he's argued the Huhne offence was more serious.
Huhne did it to avoid a ban, while Onasanya wouldn't have faced a ban had she accepted the points.
I fail to see how Huhne's is more serious.
If I steal because I'm hungry is that more serious than stealing because I'm simply stealing?
That Onasanya committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice without having her back against the wall facing a ban seems worse to me. It makes it more inexplicable.
Huhne effectively defrauded the insurance company/ies by letting them think he was allowed to drive when in fact he should have been banned.
Not an issue for the company/ies that insured Onasanya.
Her risk profile wouldn't have changed had she been given three points.
Are you sure? Back in the days when I used to get points, when I let the insurance company know they always used it as an excuse to charge me more.
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
Indeed it takes two to tango.
I could have a reasonable technical solution today but if the other side are happy with the status quo they can just say no. Whereas if both parties feel a pressing need to get a technical solution then suddenly it becomes viable.
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
The Tory manifesto of 2015 said they would further devolution and there was no one-size-fits-all solution for the UK. If they'd taken that approach to negotiations instead of insisting on a one-size-fits-all Brexit, the trust wouldn't have been destroyed.
Hence, why Corbyn, utterly cynically, is trying to engineer No Deal.
...by voting to block No Deal, and by instructing (quite possibly in vain) reluctant Labour MPs to do likewise.
You and Southam Observer seem to think Corbyn is more of a Machiavellian political genius than even his biggest fans do, if you think he's secretly trying to engineer an outcome which is the exact opposite of all his words and actions.
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
And yet the one person on all sides who has played with an absolutely straight bat at all times in this whole process is Barnier.
Reading hizzoner's remarks today I see how he's argued the Huhne offence was more serious.
Huhne did it to avoid a ban, while Onasanya wouldn't have faced a ban had she accepted the points.
I fail to see how Huhne's is more serious.
If I steal because I'm hungry is that more serious than stealing because I'm simply stealing?
That Onasanya committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice without having her back against the wall facing a ban seems worse to me. It makes it more inexplicable.
Huhne effectively defrauded the insurance company/ies by letting them think he was allowed to drive when in fact he should have been banned.
Not an issue for the company/ies that insured Onasanya.
Her risk profile wouldn't have changed had she been given three points.
Are you sure? Back in the days when I used to get points, when I let the insurance company know they always used it as an excuse to charge me more.
You need to know the right insurance companies.
For example my friend, aged 23, his car insurance was £900 for just himself.
He added his mother on as a second driver, the insurance for the pair of them, £650.
Letwin is brilliant. I thought he was going to burst into tears so great was his passion.
And he was able to answer all this nonsense about standing orders not being able to be changed.
He did that very well. Top marks - particularly considering that he voted for Mrs May's deal and will vote for it again no matter what. He knows from his previous responsibilities as a minister, the grave damage a no deal will do to the country and his party and he doesn't think Mrs May should risk it, even as a negotiating ploy.
My analogy is a person pointing a gun at their own head and threatening to pull the trigger and spatter the other side with blood if they don't get their own way. They are probably bluffing but they might not be, or might accidentally pull the trigger, particularly as some who are not in the line of fire are egging them on. Letwin believes it is reckless behaviour and not to be tolerated.
That's quite a good analogy for May's reluctance to take No Deal off the table. We're all pretty sure she's bluffing, but.... And accidents do happen.
Didn't Lord North lose some Colonies because somebody forgot to post a letter?
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
The Tory manifesto of 2015 said they would further devolution and there was no one-size-fits-all solution for the UK. If they'd taken that approach to negotiations instead of insisting on a one-size-fits-all Brexit, the trust wouldn't have been destroyed.
Except for the unavoidable facts that international relations are reserved matters and that the largest party elected in Northern Ireland wants it to be one size fits all.
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.
It’s subject to EU approval of the technological solution. As with so much here it’s a lack of trust that’s the issue. And if you don’t trust your partner a deal can’t work
And yet the one person on all sides who has played with an absolutely straight bat at all times in this whole process is Barnier.
That's great. He was supposed to help to get a deal though. Drafting a deal, as May could tell him, doesn't win you any prizes.
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
he has an election coming up TM doesnt
Why would FF and SF hammer him for making no changes at the border?
they will hammer him if he does make chamges since he has gone to town on the matter
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
He can just leave the border as is. Why would FF and SF hammer him if he does? They would do exactly the same.
Last week he was told he cant leave the border as is and promptly announced the police and army would be deployed.
Comments
I reached an agreement with my mate Jason that we were going to share conjugal rights with Margot Robbie. Which was going great - until we approached Margot about our deal......
they will also hammer him if no deal means major disruption in RoI as he has done zero preparation
he is one vote of confidence away from an election and only FF is keeping his minority government in power. He needed to call an election on his own terms ( shortly after the abortion ref would have been ideal ) increasingly however he will be forced in to one by the opposition once Brexit is passed.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090300553228374017
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090300688687607810
The depths of cynicism of this generation of parliamentarians has no bounds.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1090296371217920000
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1090286033890168832
The indicative votes plans make more sense.
I have wondered whether the venom that gets spat in his direction is always for purely political reasons.
https://commonsvotes.digiminster.com
But you know this.
If Ireland really doesn’t intend to put up a border in a no deal situation it is a ludicrous position for the EU to adopt
Tell them again!
(I was recently introduced to an 85 year old cousin’s 35 year old wife. He looked very pleased with himself. His 58 year old son next to him was less happy)
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
So I give you a 4th possibility - they are lazy. They want the prize but are not prepared to put the work in to get it. We all know the type.
Huhne did it to avoid a ban, while Onasanya wouldn't have faced a ban had she accepted the points.
What if they don't blink? Perhaps May should blink instead - yield on the Customs Union and the backstop if she is so desperate to stay in office.
"What is clear to me, however, is that the decision of the electorate in the Referendum must be respected and that I should support a reasoned process to give effect to it."
"As someone who has always advocated a close relationship between the UK and the European Union, I accept the result of the 2016 Referendum."
https://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/news/dominic-grieves-election-message-constituents
Edited to add the link
If I steal because I'm hungry is that more serious than stealing because I'm simply stealing?
That Onasanya committed perjury and tried to pervert the course of justice without having her back against the wall facing a ban seems worse to me. It makes it more inexplicable.
(I think my feed is a few minutes behind live)
I'm not watching it, I just like going along with the majority view.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law
Democratic Ummah Party or DUP for short
I suppose in reality it varies. Scared, lazy, deceitful, thick, deluded - one or more of these things depending on the individual.
Quite a crew - viva the ERG!
Not an issue for the company/ies that insured Onasanya.
Her risk profile wouldn't have changed had she been given three points.
My analogy is a person pointing a gun at their own head and threatening to pull the trigger and spatter the other side with blood if they don't get their own way. They are probably bluffing but they might not be, or might accidentally pull the trigger, particularly as some who are not in the line of fire are egging them on. Letwin believes it is reckless behaviour and not to be tolerated.
I could have a reasonable technical solution today but if the other side are happy with the status quo they can just say no. Whereas if both parties feel a pressing need to get a technical solution then suddenly it becomes viable.
You and Southam Observer seem to think Corbyn is more of a Machiavellian political genius than even his biggest fans do, if you think he's secretly trying to engineer an outcome which is the exact opposite of all his words and actions.
For example my friend, aged 23, his car insurance was £900 for just himself.
He added his mother on as a second driver, the insurance for the pair of them, £650.
Didn't Lord North lose some Colonies because somebody forgot to post a letter?
That would be consistent with their tactics so far
NEW THREAD