So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
I believed it was by both of us agreeing, was it not?
And if they don’t agree we can’t leave (as someone else pointed out saying they have a veto on us leaving would be s better way to phrase)
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.
And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?
Laters...
No doubt they have an ample supply of champagne and foie-gras in their copious cellars to see them all through the effective closure of Dover-Calais crossing.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
The blame would lie with whoever planted the bomb.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The only story from tonight is that what should have happened tonight will now happen in two or three weeks' time.
That is my view too. I notice that on the Brady Amendment Jo Johnson and Stephen Crabb abstained on the Tory side. Quite a few Labour abstentions on the key votes.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
I don't think that's right, it's QMV so they don't all have to agree. They won't, but technically they could.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
The blame would lie with whoever planted the bomb.
The ERG will blame the EU. Corbyn will invite the IRA to dinner.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
1 country is affected by this. 1 country has to agree. The rest aren't going to die in the ditch for reinstating a backstop if the Irish blink.
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
I don't think that's right, it's QMV so they don't all have to agree. They won't, but technically they could.
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
Precisely. The US Senate has to agree to any US international treaty. If the Senate rejects an agreement for a specific reason then the President seeks to address those issues would Rep Brendan Boyle (whoever he is) oppose that?
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
The Irish American lobby is on Ireland’s side. We’ll be hearing a lot from them in the coming months and years.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
1 country is affected by this. 1 country has to agree. The rest aren't going to die in the ditch for reinstating a backstop if the Irish blink.
Except in blows a hole in the SM, which others will look at very closely.
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
I believed it was by both of us agreeing, was it not?
And if they don’t agree we can’t leave (as someone else pointed out saying they have a veto on us leaving would be s better way to phrase)
So, if they are in bad faith, they can force NI to stay in alignment, at their own cost? But - if they are indeed an evil empire who would force us into unnecessary alignment and agreement, how could we (or anyone who believes that) ever trust any agreement they made, anyway? If relations between us break down to that extent, then our unilateral abrogation wouldn't have any significant negative effects.
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU will blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
Clearly you don't
Threat level Response Critical An attack is expected imminently.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...
Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:
1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal 2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal 3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA 4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal
(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)
Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.
Divergence is not the end of the world. It is what we voted for with Brexit.
Currently we are in a customs union, and leaving only needs A50 two years notice. How would two years notice be any worse than that?
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
Clearly you don't
Threat level Response Critical An attack is expected imminently.
Currently the threat level is severe
severe - an attack is highly likely
Honestly - give it a rest
Lets also add in the CURRENT situation for (Northern) Irish terrorism
The threat to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is moderate.
The threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is severe.
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU wilk blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).
The last plenary session of the European Parliament before 11pm March 29th is March 28th.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
The government is bringing the same thing back.
The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.
Divergence is not the end of the world. It is what we voted for with Brexit.
Currently we are in a customs union, and leaving only needs A50 two years notice. How would two years notice be any worse than that?
So, nothing has changed, and TINA. Well, that's a surprise.
Nonetheless, I would draw your attention to the (obviously prepared in advance) statement by Donald Tusk, repeated in very similar terms by Leo Varadkar. Read carefully:
"The Withdrawal Agreement is and remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The backstop is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for re-negotiation. The December European Council conclusions are very clear on this point.
If the UK's intentions for the future partnership were to evolve, the EU would be prepared to reconsider its offer and adjust the content and the level of ambition of the political declaration, whilst respecting its established principles."
Now, dunno about you, but I can read that only in one way: an appeal to Labour MPs. Who else is he trying to win over to ratify the WA whilst leaving open a closer future relationship that Theresa May has envisaged?
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place?
It's a tough cookie to crack, certainly. We'll see if MPs will make any progress in 2 weeks I guess, when May does not.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
The government is bringing the same thing back.
The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.
Not if the deal is amended, it will be a different deal.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
I thought the government are planning to bring the WA back again?
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
Presumably, as it would be an amendment tagged onto something else?
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
She voted against it herself.
The alternative is another 2/1 defeat in the Commons. What would that achieve?
Couple of thoughts on ownership of any fallout and apparent contradiction in the EU position:
I don’t think people blaming the EU for No Deal is mutually exclusive with awaiting delivery of their free gov.uk unicorn, and blaming TMay if it turns out to be six months living on turnips. A bad Brexit isn’t nailed on, but the electoral direction of travel if we have one is.
And this thing about “tell us what you want”/“we’re not changing anything”. I think that offer was made in the wake of May making Remainy noises like inviting Nicola and Vince for tea the other week. They’re all ears for “we’d actually like something a bit less Brexity, please”. Not so much anything harder.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
I know. I'm hiding under the bed again. Oh look, a Lego.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
The government is bringing the same thing back.
The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.
Not if the deal is amended, it will be a different deal.
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU will blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).
With all the relocations, will there be some cracking opportunities for expanding and new companies to fill the voids left by the those flocking across the water?
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
I know. I'm hiding under the bed again. Oh look, a Lego.
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...
Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:
1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal 2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal 3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA 4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal
(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)
Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU will blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).
With all the relocations, will there be some cracking opportunities for expanding and new companies to fill the voids left by the those flocking across the water?
That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.
She voted against it herself.
The alternative is another 2/1 defeat in the Commons. What would that achieve?
It would have been classier to abstain. The vote on the Brady amendment wasn’t even close.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
Clearly you don't
Threat level Response Critical An attack is expected imminently.
Currently the threat level is severe
severe - an attack is highly likely
Honestly - give it a rest
Not often we agree Floater but Chris A is out of order with that comment
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
The government is bringing the same thing back.
The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.
Not if the deal is amended, it will be a different deal.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
Plus the European Parliament
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't need unanimous backing from the 27, only a "super qualified majority". It's extension that requires unanimity.
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...
Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:
1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal 2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal 3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA 4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal
(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)
Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.
The real story from tonight is that the Tories are buggered - they deliver No Deal or split. And Dennis Skinner is a Tory scab.
Most Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain, most Labour voters want EUref2 with a Remain option over Brexit, if we go to No Deal and Corbyn has not backed EUref2 with a Remain option beforehand it may be Labour most buggered, with the LDs the main beneficiaries
Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...
Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU will blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).
With all the relocations, will there be some cracking opportunities for expanding and new companies to fill the voids left by the those flocking across the water?
Turnip distributors will need the ability to expand.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
I know. I'm hiding under the bed again. Oh look, a Lego.
Not one of these it is?
Hold on, let me hold it up to the light. Ew. That wasn't a Lego...
The real story from tonight is that the Tories are buggered - they deliver No Deal or split. And Dennis Skinner is a Tory scab.
Most Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain, most Labour voters want EUref2 with a Remain option over Brexit, if we go to No Deal and Corbyn has not backed EUref2 it may be Labour most buggered, with the LDs the main beneficiaries
I fear we'll be all buggered my friend. Except me. I have the keys to a food bank. And will become Lord of my own little Empire. Mwaaaahahahahaha.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.
QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
I know. I'm hiding under the bed again. Oh look, a Lego.
I was at uni with a girl who is now head of LEGO marketing and I think she will confirm that LEGO does not take an article or a plural. It's 'a bit of LEGO' or 'pieces of LEGO'.
Strange that this is the most important thing today.
Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?
I thought the government are planning to bring the WA back again?
Not an identical WA though? They've got some get some change or Bercow said he wouldn't allow it to come back?
Comments
And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?
Laters...
A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.
W***ers.
The original can't have been that witty if you can't remember the originator. It was in fact Thatch.
Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.
2 minutes still to go. Eek.....
Allen, Heidi
Bebb, Guto
Clarke, Mr Kenneth
Grieve, Mr Dominic
Lee, Dr Phillip
Morris, Anne Marie
Soubry, Anna
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
If relations between us break down to that extent, then our unilateral abrogation wouldn't have any significant negative effects.
... takes several generations’ practice.
Amendment-apocalypse: Spineless MPs just voted against reality"
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/29/amendment-apocalypse-spineless-mps-just-voted-against-realit
Threat level Response
Critical An attack is expected imminently.
Currently the threat level is severe
severe - an attack is highly likely
Honestly - give it a rest
Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:
1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal
2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal
3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA
4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal
(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)
Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.
The threat to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is moderate.
The threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is severe.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ireland/resource/static/files/EP Calendar/calendar_2019_en.pdf
The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.
Nonetheless, I would draw your attention to the (obviously prepared in advance) statement by Donald Tusk, repeated in very similar terms by Leo Varadkar. Read carefully:
"The Withdrawal Agreement is and remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The backstop is part of the Withdrawal Agreement, and the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for re-negotiation. The December European Council conclusions are very clear on this point.
If the UK's intentions for the future partnership were to evolve, the EU would be prepared to reconsider its offer and adjust the content and the level of ambition of the political declaration, whilst respecting its established principles."
Now, dunno about you, but I can read that only in one way: an appeal to Labour MPs. Who else is he trying to win over to ratify the WA whilst leaving open a closer future relationship that Theresa May has envisaged?
I don’t think people blaming the EU for No Deal is mutually exclusive with awaiting delivery of their free gov.uk unicorn, and blaming TMay if it turns out to be six months living on turnips. A bad Brexit isn’t nailed on, but the electoral direction of travel if we have one is.
And this thing about “tell us what you want”/“we’re not changing anything”. I think that offer was made in the wake of May making Remainy noises like inviting Nicola and Vince for tea the other week. They’re all ears for “we’d actually like something a bit less Brexity, please”. Not so much anything harder.
if
I'll let myself out, good evening everyone.How are you doing on the PB FF League?
As for the fantasy football, I'm doing as well as Brexit.
Ew.
That wasn't a Lego...
https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1090345502011465730?s=19
Mentions it a lot.
Strange that this is the most important thing today.