This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
You couldn't put a fag packet between them, though their specific issues are quite different.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Gordon Brown in his prime, or Robin Cook, would have taken this government to pieces.
By the time they had finished even Tory back benchers would be begging for a GE to end it all.
And what about Healey or Wilson or Blair? Labour’s pathetic self indulgence with a slightly bizarre moron with a deeply unpleasant past and attitudes has meant that there has been no pressure to aspire for the giddy heights of mere incompetence. Even now they lead in the polls.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Whatever happens we are screwed . RIP UK
UK plc is actually doing ok, despite our politicians best efforts. We will survive this but there must be a reckoning with a political elite completely unfit for purpose.
Let’s say it’s a choice between no deal and a second EU ref to confirm Mays deal what happens .
What do Labour MPs do in Leave seats , what do more moderate Tories do . What do the DUP do ?
The problem for the ERG is that if May does manage some changes to the backstop which also changes the legal advice and they move the goalposts again the anger amongst saner Tories will cause a huge backlash .
It won't be a choice between that, neither May nor most of her MPs will back a second EU referendum and the Commons is also likely to vote down No Deal next month too, most likely the choice will be between May's Deal and indefinite Article 50 extension which May confirmed today she would also allow the Commons to vote for, albeit the latter may eventually lead to an EUref2 between May's Deal and Remain
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
Technical question: If the EU grant an extension, then the UK unexpectedly gets its shit together before the end of the extension period, it is legally possible to bring the exit date forwards again?
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
As you say the Irish Govt do not trust us so why should we trust them?
We have to trust them that they will not keep us in the backstop indefinitely. We have to trust them, that we agree to pay the future liabilities for a so called good future deal which they will not guarantee.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Gordon Brown in his prime, or Robin Cook, would have taken this government to pieces.
By the time they had finished even Tory back benchers would be begging for a GE to end it all.
And what about Healey or Wilson or Blair? Labour’s pathetic self indulgence with a slightly bizarre moron with a deeply unpleasant past and attitudes has meant that there has been no pressure to aspire for the giddy heights of mere incompetence. Even now they lead in the polls.
Technical question: If the EU grant an extension, then the UK unexpectedly gets its shit together before the end of the extension period, it is legally possible to bring the exit date forwards again?
Technical question: If the EU grant an extension, then the UK unexpectedly gets its shit together before the end of the extension period, it is legally possible to bring the exit date forwards again?
I have just been told that the largest school in Cannock will not be offering A-levels in maths or ICT next year as they are so bloody hard to get a decent grade in nobody is choosing them. (No, not my school.)
This is madness. And it will not end well. Indeed, it has already ended rather badly.
We need to make universities elite again so only 10% of children go to university.
Abolish the old polys.
The polytechnics were already degree awarding institutions - ie CNN degrees. Why was there any need or desire to convert them into universities - a move which has caused confusion for many without previous family experience of Higher Education?.
Because they were seen as 2nd class institutions.
Why has the removal caused confusion for many without previous family experience of Higher Education?
Because quite a few of them do not offer courses comparable in quality to the degree courses provided by the traditional universities.To many people from a background without previous experience of Higher Education ' a degree is a degree' and there is little understanding of the hierarchy which in reality exists re-such qualifications. As a result many enroll on courses expecting something far more valuable than actually emerges at the end - having incurred significant debt for little gain. On the other hand, some of the Polys were very good - Lanchester - Hatfield - Portsmouth come to mind - and have developed sufficiently so as to be now viewed as bona fide universities.
My wife has on several occassions omitted 'Brookes' when responding to the question of where she got her degree from.
Technical question: If the EU grant an extension, then the UK unexpectedly gets its shit together before the end of the extension period, it is legally possible to bring the exit date forwards again?
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Gordon Brown in his prime, or Robin Cook, would have taken this government to pieces.
By the time they had finished even Tory back benchers would be begging for a GE to end it all.
And what about Healey or Wilson or Blair? Labour’s pathetic self indulgence with a slightly bizarre moron with a deeply unpleasant past and attitudes has meant that there has been no pressure to aspire for the giddy heights of mere incompetence. Even now they lead in the polls.
John Smith would have a field day as well.
Yep. It’s fish in a barrel. You need to be as stupid as Corbyn to miss.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Gordon Brown in his prime, or Robin Cook, would have taken this government to pieces.
By the time they had finished even Tory back benchers would be begging for a GE to end it all.
And what about Healey or Wilson or Blair? Labour’s pathetic self indulgence with a slightly bizarre moron with a deeply unpleasant past and attitudes has meant that there has been no pressure to aspire for the giddy heights of mere incompetence. Even now they lead in the polls.
John Smith would have a field day as well.
Anyone frankly. Other than the clown fest we have as Shadow Cabinet at the moment.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
The 1992 to 1997 and 2005 to 2010 Governments were both worse than this one in my lifetime and the 1970 to 1974 and 1974 to 1979 Governments worse before that.
Despite Brexit the economy is still doing OK and May today has commendably done everything she can to avoid No Deal by ensuring Parliament has to positively vote for No Deal or extending Article 50 if it will not vote for her Deal while still ruling out a divisive EUref2
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Whatever happens we are screwed . RIP UK
UK plc is actually doing ok, despite our politicians best efforts. We will survive this but there must be a reckoning with a political elite completely unfit for purpose.
I would argue that UK PLC is doing well because our politicians are so absorbed with arguing with themselves about Brexit that they haven't had the time to fuck anything up.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
As you say the Irish Govt do not trust us so why should we trust them?
We have to trust them that they will not keep us in the backstop indefinitely. We have to trust them, that we agree to pay the future liabilities for a so called good future deal which they will not guarantee.
Does trust not go both ways?
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the history of the matter know that there is a ton of historical baggage that means we have to earn their trust more than they have to earn ours. Irish history is full of British Governments not making good on their commitments. We have to live with that. It’s not “fair” but it’s the political reality.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
Why do we have to follow any EU rules apart from exporters that want to sell into the EU must make a product that complies to their product rules.
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
"Dave and George" held a referendum and blew it, thus landing us in all of this FYI.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Until the one which involved a referendum.
A minor issue.
If only the country had followed Dave's lead and backed Remain.
... the only way to get the EU to concede on the backstop is to be prepared to go to No Deal...
Seriously? You still believe that? This has been going on for years. Cameron's Bloomberg speech was six years ago. For years we've been banging on that if we threaten to Leave, or threaten to Leave with No Deal, they will give us what we want. It hasn't worked once.
I didn't say threaten to leave ... I said be prepared to leave ... Do you understand the difference?
I've spent the last three years on this board arguing that we need to do everything we can to prepare for No Deal Brexit.
That is, we need to build the infrastructure and roll over the agreements with out trading partners outside the EU, to make threats to walk away more credible.
We have, basically, done fuck all. We've managed to roll over Switzerland and South Africa. We've got mutual standards recognition agreed with the US (albeit they've refused to roll over the existing dispute resolution mechanism, because it was too balanced). We're going to get half a dozen more.
But there are dozens of agreements we've failed to replicate. We've built fuck all in the way of infrastructure. We've not hired the people needed to handle either everyone from the EU and most of EFTA requiring a landing card, or to check goods and services. Ships taking Aston Martins to Korea right now have no idea if we'll still be covered by the existing EU FTA when they arrive.
We've done nothing to deal with the potential drop out of the EU's rules against double taxation and withholding tax, that will dramatically reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a centre for European holding companies. (And which, by the way, is perfectly solvable: it just takes 18 months, not oohhhh... five weeks.)
We haven't even published our planned tariff schedule for a post No Deal Brexit.
We can leave with No Deal. It would always have been somewhat painful, but the lack of preparation means it will be extremely painful.
Your call.
I agree with all that until the second last paragraph.
Hypothetically if it was my call I would propose an alternative plan C. Say that the deal can't be passed, it looks like we are heading to No Deal but request an extension until the end of 2020 in order to either renegotiate an acceptable deal or plan properly for No Deal.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Whatever happens we are screwed . RIP UK
UK plc is actually doing ok, despite our politicians best efforts. We will survive this but there must be a reckoning with a political elite completely unfit for purpose.
I would argue that UK PLC is doing well because our politicians are so absorbed with arguing with themselves about Brexit that they haven't had the time to fuck anything up.
Oh how we laughed at those Belgians when they couldn’t get their government together. We’ve had pretty much no government for two years either.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.
I did.
Was one of the secondary factors for my backing Remain, I knew if Leave won it would the end of the age of Dave and George and the more extreme Leavers would be emboldened like never before.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
Why do we have to follow any EU rules apart from exporters that want to sell into the EU must make a product that complies to their product rules.
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
If the first thing you want to do as a country outside the EU is to remove a right that worker's a) can already opt out and b) is far less restrictive than many would like it to be (I personally, have a particular dislike to the fact it allows multi-hour unpaid gaps in a shift pattern) you really need to think of a better argument.
It is testament to May’s peculiar “gift” that neither Brexiters nor Remainers can tell if they are winning or not, but judging by May’s previous form they both assume she is pulling a fast one.
Technical question: If the EU grant an extension, then the UK unexpectedly gets its shit together before the end of the extension period, it is legally possible to bring the exit date forwards again?
Everything post-March 29 is an agreement between the UK and EU and can be moved up or down by agreement of both parties. I think. But I am not an expert and this might be wrong
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.
We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.
Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.
The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.
If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
urances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
Why do we have to follow any EU rules apart from exporters that want to sell into the EU must make a product that complies to their product rules.
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
If the first thing you want to do as a country outside the EU is to remove a right that worker's a) can already opt out and b) is far less restrictive than many would like it to be (I personally, have a particular dislike to the fact it allows multi-hour unpaid gaps in a shift pattern) you really need to think of a better argument.
I think you have not understood my argument at all.
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.
We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.
Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.
The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.
If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.
Problem solved.
I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.
Yeah, I remember that. And I remember people getting really annoyed about it.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
"Dave and George" held a referendum and blew it, thus landing us in all of this FYI.
I bow to no man in my low opinion of George Osborne but in fairness to him he didn't want the referendum and advised Cameron not to hold it.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
Why do we have to follow any EU rules apart from exporters that want to sell into the EU must make a product that complies to their product rules.
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
Will Australia have to maintain animal standards equivalent to ours to sell us dead sheep?
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
Yoke? Seriously? Assuming you live in England you are privileged enough to live in a country that has not suffered foreign military occupation in the modern era. Practically no other country in Europe can say that. There was no Artcle 50 for the Irish to leave the UK in 1916 nor for the former Yugoslav states to leave that union.
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
“As a standard, deals can be terminated by either party”. Really? Any evidence for that assertion? There’s no exit clause in the Act of Union but I don’t see anyone doubting that London will let Scotland go its way if they vote to do so. Indeed, if what you say is correct (which it isn’t) there would be no need for Article 56 of the Vienna Convention dealing with withdrawal from treaties with no provision regarding termination. In a worse case scenario we could just rip it up.
Looks like we are going to remain. It was always the plan of the remainders to bring us to this place by ensuring a crap deal that wouldn’t get through parliament , ruling out no deal and then narrowing options until only remain is possible . It’s a total stitch up of democracy
Too many Labour MPs from Leave seats will vote for May's Deal over EUref2 for the latter to be likely but we could face indefinite extension of Article 50
Seems to me May and co should've been spending less time on their fool's errand to Brussels and more time speaking to Labour MPs. Is it clear to anybody what control Corbyn will exert over his MPs on the 12th? Is he still going to (try to) force them to oppose May on the basis that her deal isn't the same as Labour's deal?
... the only way to get the EU to concede on the backstop is to be prepared to go to No Deal...
Seriously? You still believe that? This has been going on for years. Cameron's Bloomberg speech was six years ago. For years we've been banging on that if we threaten to Leave, or threaten to Leave with No Deal, they will give us what we want. It hasn't worked once.
I didn't say threaten to leave ... I said be prepared to leave ... Do you understand the difference?
I've spent the last three years on this board arguing that we need to do everything we can to prepare for No Deal Brexit.
That is, we need to build the infrastructure and roll over the agreements with out trading partners outside the EU, to make threats to walk away more credible.
We have, basically, done fuck all. We've managed to roll over Switzerland and South Africa. We've got mutual standards recognition agreed with the US (albeit they've refused to roll over the existing dispute resolution mechanism, because it was too balanced). We're going to get half a dozen more.
But there are dozens of agreements we've failed to replicate. We've built fuck all in the way of infrastructure. We've not hired the people needed to handle either everyone from the EU and most of EFTA requiring a landing card, or to check goods and services. Ships taking Aston Martins to Korea right now have no idea if we'll still be covered by the existing EU FTA when they arrive.
We've done nothing to deal with the potential drop out of the EU's rules against double taxation and withholding tax, that will dramatically reduce the attractiveness of the UK as a centre for European holding companies. (And which, by the way, is perfectly solvable: it just takes 18 months, not oohhhh... five weeks.)
We haven't even published our planned tariff schedule for a post No Deal Brexit.
We can leave with No Deal. It would always have been somewhat painful, but the lack of preparation means it will be extremely painful.
Your call.
I agree with all that until the second last paragraph.
Hypothetically if it was my call I would propose an alternative plan C. Say that the deal can't be passed, it looks like we are heading to No Deal but request an extension until the end of 2020 in order to either renegotiate an acceptable deal or plan properly for No Deal.
And actually do the planning this time!
Not a stupid idea. And at least Dr Fox seems to finally be actually doing something.
For some time it has been clear the any actual ERG approved deal would not be possible to be achieved, or would not have enough votes from others to pass anyway. Therefore it naturally follows either the ERG would have to stymie everything in the hopes of no deal, or May/Parliament would at some point have to face down the ERG as the only things that could get passed would seriously annoy the ERG.
I know why there has been reluctance to confront them - for one thing their position is not actually that unpopular outside the Commons - but something has to give.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
"Dave and George" held a referendum and blew it, thus landing us in all of this FYI.
I bow to no man in my low opinion of George Osborne but in fairness to him he didn't want the referendum and advised Cameron not to hold it.
Maybe... But I bet "The Master Strategist" was the one who decided it would be a good idea to play Russian Roulette with the electorate...
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
"Dave and George" held a referendum and blew it, thus landing us in all of this FYI.
I bow to no man in my low opinion of George Osborne but in fairness to him he didn't want the referendum and advised Cameron not to hold it.
Maybe... But I bet "The Master Strategist" was the one who decided it would be a good idea to play Russian Roulette with the electorate...
Nope, he was opposed to holding a referendum, quoting Margaret Thatcher's views on referendums.
Looks like we are going to remain. It was always the plan of the remainders to bring us to this place by ensuring a crap deal that wouldn’t get through parliament , ruling out no deal and then narrowing options until only remain is possible . It’s a total stitch up of democracy
The Brexit ranks seem to be stacked with conspiracy theorists.
Looks like we are going to remain. It was always the plan of the remainders to bring us to this place by ensuring a crap deal that wouldn’t get through parliament , ruling out no deal and then narrowing options until only remain is possible . It’s a total stitch up of democracy
Too many Labour MPs from Leave seats will vote for May's Deal over EUref2 for the latter to be likely but we could face indefinite extension of Article 50
Seems to me May and co should've been spending less time on their fool's errand to Brussels and more time speaking to Labour MPs. Is it clear to anybody what control Corbyn will exert over his MPs on the 12th? Is he still going to (try to) force them to oppose May on the basis that her deal isn't the same as Labour's deal?
We know Labour MPs like Flint and Snell will vote for permanent Customs Union as they did before but as they have made clear they will not vote for EUref2 and would switch to May's Deal over that or No Deal
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
"Dave and George" held a referendum and blew it, thus landing us in all of this FYI.
I bow to no man in my low opinion of George Osborne but in fairness to him he didn't want the referendum and advised Cameron not to hold it.
Maybe... But I bet "The Master Strategist" was the one who decided it would be a good idea to play Russian Roulette with the electorate...
Nope, he was opposed to holding a referendum, quoting Margaret Thatcher's views on referendums.
I know he was against the commitment to hold the referendum but when Dave was forced into it because he won the majority in 2015 I bet George came up with the strategy to "win" the campaign.
The REMAIN referendum campaign had The Master Strategists prints all over it.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.
I did.
Was one of the secondary factors for my backing Remain, I knew if Leave won it would the end of the age of Dave and George and the more extreme Leavers would be emboldened like never before.
It made me hesitate more than anything else. With hindsight the price just might have been too high.
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.
We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.
Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.
The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.
If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.
Problem solved.
I can live with that. I think its deeply concerning to go into a Treaty expecting to need to unilaterally abrogate it while the other party is making clear you can't unilaterally do so though.
But we only need to unilaterally abrogate in the event that the EU (and Ireland) do not keep to their side of the bargain - see the Withdrawal Agreement, page 302, paragraph 2 which obliges the parties to work to replace the backstop. If the EU and Ireland do not do that, then they have broken to the treaty.
We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.
For some time it has been clear the any actual ERG approved deal would not be possible to be achieved, or would not have enough votes from others to pass anyway. Therefore it naturally follows either the ERG would have to stymie everything in the hopes of no deal, or May/Parliament would at some point have to face down the ERG as the only things that could get passed would seriously annoy the ERG.
I know why there has been reluctance to confront them - for one thing their position is not actually that unpopular outside the Commons - but something has to give.
Just imagine you’d scheduled your shutdown for just after 29 March to ensure an efficient use of a time of possible disruption. I doubt you’d be too impressed today.
Looks like we are going to remain. It was always the plan of the remainders to bring us to this place by ensuring a crap deal that wouldn’t get through parliament , ruling out no deal and then narrowing options until only remain is possible . It’s a total stitch up of democracy
The Brexit ranks seem to be stacked with conspiracy theorists.
It's not much of a conspiracy that we could well end up remaining now, nor that some people have been working toward that end for a long time. I for one do not believe a crap deal was deliberately engineered for that purpose - that's just because it was a damn hard task, incompetently handled - but for the people out there who assumed right from the start that parliament would not let us leave and it has all been a ploy does it really matter much if they are wrong about the conspiracy? They may well still be right about the outcome after all.
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
I'm afraid this is absolute tosh.
We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.
Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.
The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.
If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.
Problem solved.
The problem with this is that the EU is a more powerful actor in world affairs than the UK.
They think the best way forward is to give a vote to the entire electorate and proceed according to the result?
Anti democratic bastards.
We have already given instructions to our elected representatives to leave . They need to carry it out
Unless we have changed our minds, in which case they need not to carry it out. And if we haven't changed our minds, there is still very little harm in asking.
Your position is entirely understandable - if you are leading at the end of the first lap there is a definite incentive to argue that it was always going to be a one lap race. The trouble is that you need a really first rate argument from principle to rebut the charge of opportunism. Any argument based on the proposition that holding a universal plebiscite is the essence of anti democracy just makes you look silly.
This is the most incompetent and dysfunctional government of my adult life. As someone who generally votes Tory I get no satisfaction from saying this, indeed it causes me deep dismay, but there is no getting away from it.
From utterly inept negotiations, failing to have the necessary statutory framework on the books for any scenario, failing to prepare for no deal, failing to make arrangements with most of our trading partners weeks before we are supposed to leave, constantly postponing decisions with no regard to the real world consequences, I could go on all night. The worst in my lifetime. Fact.
And the alternative, god help us, looks worse.
Bring back Dave and George when a shambles involved one of a horse, pasties, and yachts.
Oh the days when the biggest problem with a budget was whether VAT fell to be paid on a pie that had been heated up for you. We didn’t know how good we had it.
I did.
Was one of the secondary factors for my backing Remain, I knew if Leave won it would the end of the age of Dave and George and the more extreme Leavers would be emboldened like never before.
It made me hesitate more than anything else. With hindsight the price just might have been too high.
For some time it has been clear the any actual ERG approved deal would not be possible to be achieved, or would not have enough votes from others to pass anyway. Therefore it naturally follows either the ERG would have to stymie everything in the hopes of no deal, or May/Parliament would at some point have to face down the ERG as the only things that could get passed would seriously annoy the ERG.
I know why there has been reluctance to confront them - for one thing their position is not actually that unpopular outside the Commons - but something has to give.
Brexit will give.
Well indeed it might. I'm sure the ERG will comfort themselves in their purity nonetheless. Not out fault, they will cry.
“As a standard, deals can be terminated by either party”. Really? Any evidence for that assertion? There’s no exit clause in the Act of Union but I don’t see anyone doubting that London will let Scotland go its way if they vote to do so. Indeed, if what you say is correct (which it isn’t) there would be no need for Article 56 of the Vienna Convention dealing with withdrawal from treaties with no provision regarding termination. In a worse case scenario we could just rip it up.
The Acts of Union were not deals, they were permanent mergers. That's different from a deal. The parties that signed the Acts of Union don't exist anymore so its a bit hard for either to terminate the agreement now.
It is my understanding that Article 56 of the Vienna Convention would prevent us from ripping up the Treaty since under Part 1 the Irish etc that we have made the Treaty with have made clear both that the possibility to denunciate or withdraw from it has not been admitted and that it isn't implied by the agreement.
To my understanding the only reason we could rip it up under the Vienna Convention is because the EU isn't a signatory. But Ireland etc are, so that's very awkward.
It's not Brexit. Brexit is taking back control not the EU keeping control unless they deign to release us from their yoke.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This "customs arrangement" to which you refer. Who determines it? Who sets the customs regulations? Who sets the tariff schedule? Who gets to elect people who can change the schedule or change the regulations?
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We can either be part of one of the world's major trading blocks, or try and carve out a place just outside of it, which inevitably means following many of its rules without any say. The mistake Farage and the rest made was to think that Brexit would trigger the collapse of the EU, rather than making it stronger.
Why do we have to follow any EU rules apart from exporters that want to sell into the EU must make a product that complies to their product rules.
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
Will Australia have to maintain animal standards equivalent to ours to sell us dead sheep?
If we follow EU rules for food if we left then what would have to happen is the food produced for the Australian home market would have to follow those rules. Food produced for the EU or UK would have to follow EU or UK rules.
I have no problem with the concept that businesses that want to export to the EU have to follow EU product rules and in the case of food or medicines EU manufacturing rules at the factory. What I have a big problem with is saying that the UK government would have to apply all EU rules across all areas social, environmental, H&S and product so we can trade with them.
The Far Left has taken over. It has never been shy about being anti-semitic. No-one noticed or cared because it was confined to dark corners. Now it’s out in the light and it’s not a pretty sight. Why do you think previous mainstream Labour leaders fought so hard to keep the Far Left out?
This. The far left believe in Class War. That their people are already bruised and bloodied by the Powers That Be. So making them more bruised and bloodied is ok if it's done to make them rise up.
That such amoral batshit stupidity has infested my party makes it so much harder for me to condemn the amoral batshit stupidity in the Tories
The anti middle class bile spouted by the far left isn’t limited to the far left. The xenophobic nativist right has it in spades. It’s one of the very many reasons why the two main parties should split, and split now. And leave the sane middle to the Tiggers, or whatever else emerges from the fallout of a political system that is long past its sell-by date.
“As a standard, deals can be terminated by either party”. Really? Any evidence for that assertion? There’s no exit clause in the Act of Union but I don’t see anyone doubting that London will let Scotland go its way if they vote to do so. Indeed, if what you say is correct (which it isn’t) there would be no need for Article 56 of the Vienna Convention dealing with withdrawal from treaties with no provision regarding termination. In a worse case scenario we could just rip it up.
The Acts of Union were not deals, they were permanent mergers. That's different from a deal. The parties that signed the Acts of Union don't exist anymore so its a bit hard for either to terminate the agreement now.
It is my understanding that Article 56 of the Vienna Convention would prevent us from ripping up the Treaty since under Part 1 the Irish etc that we have made the Treaty with have made clear both that the possibility to denunciate or withdraw from it has not been admitted and that it isn't implied by the agreement.
To my understanding the only reason we could rip it up under the Vienna Convention is because the EU isn't a signatory. But Ireland etc are, so that's very awkward.
Entities merge as a result of coming to a deal. In 1707 the English and the Scots made a deal to merge their parliaments. As part of the deal the English agreed not to impose their legal system on the Scots.
I’m a qualified lawyer and I’m not even going to pretend to have an authoritative view on the Vienna Convention. I cited it merely to demonstrate your demonstrably false claim that “as a standard” deals have exit clauses - because if that were true there would not be any need for Art 56.
Only gay/straight? And Chriistian/Muslim or Jewish? #buddhistbisexualerasure
It just shows up intersectionality for the nonsense it is. It is nothing more than a political agenda - no basis in science, reality or anything else credible.
I’m willing to admit I had never heard of intersectionality until I did that quiz.
It's just another word for how many "historically disadvantaged groups" you belong to.
Comments
Anyone with an ounce of historical knowledge knows that a reserve permanent customs arrangement with a neighbour is not being under anyone’s “yoke” nor is it “subjugation” nor any of the other adjectives you employ to suggest that we are being colonised or oppressed by the EU. It’s infantile to suggest otherwise. The backstop is a customs arrangement in place in large part because the Irish don’t trust the British Government without legally binding assurances - they know what being under a “yoke” actually means.
There are other ways of looking at the world than through the prism of imperialism. It’s a deal between the EU and a soon to be third country. The “third country” bit means we are no longer in the EU.
This threat is laughable . If they formed their own party it would lead to big probs for the Tory vote as that’s more reliant on Leave voters .
And I doubt many Labour leavers will be jumping to them when they see the capitalism on steroids that the ERG want .
As standard, deals can be terminated by either party. This can't. We will forever unless they relinquish control be subjugated to their rules and their schedules etc without anyone we elect having a say.
We have to trust them that they will not keep us in the backstop indefinitely.
We have to trust them, that we agree to pay the future liabilities for a so called good future deal which they will not guarantee.
Does trust not go both ways?
The DUP had better hope they can find a ladder to climb down from because if they’re complicit in a no deal they really will be in big trouble .
Farage can reach Labour's northern heartlands like nobody in the ERG can.
Despite Brexit the economy is still doing OK and May today has commendably done everything she can to avoid No Deal by ensuring Parliament has to positively vote for No Deal or extending Article 50 if it will not vote for her Deal while still ruling out a divisive EUref2
Does Australia have to apply he working time directive to sell wine to the EU?
If only the country had followed Dave's lead and backed Remain.
Is true. But obviously we're in a totally different political landscape now.,,
Hypothetically if it was my call I would propose an alternative plan C. Say that the deal can't be passed, it looks like we are heading to No Deal but request an extension until the end of 2020 in order to either renegotiate an acceptable deal or plan properly for No Deal.
And actually do the planning this time!
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/amber-rudd-greg-clark-and-david-gauke-labelled-kamikaze-ministers-in-tense-cabinet/
Was one of the secondary factors for my backing Remain, I knew if Leave won it would the end of the age of Dave and George and the more extreme Leavers would be emboldened like never before.
b) is far less restrictive than many would like it to be (I personally, have a particular dislike to the fact it allows multi-hour unpaid gaps in a shift pattern)
you really need to think of a better argument.
We can abrogate the treaty, as we can any treaty.
Now, there are consequences to that, but if we felt the EU had not done its (treaty obliged) best to work for a technological solution in Northern Ireland we would be morally right in doing so.
The simple solution is this. We announce the existence of a multinational (say 1 x Swiss, 1 x Norwegian, 1x Canadian, 1 x New Zealand, 1 x Brazilian) committee of trade academics, who write a report every year on whether the parties are keeping to the spirit of the treaty - i.e. working for a technological solution in Northern Ireland.
If they say the EU is not, then we given them one year's notice. If it has not changed the following year, we simply announce the EU has not kept to the terms of the treaty, and that we no longer recognise it as valid.
Problem solved.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1100509366611005441
Which is surely a fancy way of saying gammon.
I mean, really.
Brexit will give.
Anti democratic bastards.
I’m embarrassed to say this, but there was a time I respected Andrew Lilico.
He’s since turned into a raver.
The REMAIN referendum campaign had The Master Strategists prints all over it.
We only abrogate in the circumstance where the EU does not abide by its treaty obligations; abrogation is not our intention.
NEW THREAD
Your position is entirely understandable - if you are leading at the end of the first lap there is a definite incentive to argue that it was always going to be a one lap race. The trouble is that you need a really first rate argument from principle to rebut the charge of opportunism. Any argument based on the proposition that holding a universal plebiscite is the essence of anti democracy just makes you look silly.
It is my understanding that Article 56 of the Vienna Convention would prevent us from ripping up the Treaty since under Part 1 the Irish etc that we have made the Treaty with have made clear both that the possibility to denunciate or withdraw from it has not been admitted and that it isn't implied by the agreement.
To my understanding the only reason we could rip it up under the Vienna Convention is because the EU isn't a signatory. But Ireland etc are, so that's very awkward.
I have no problem with the concept that businesses that want to export to the EU have to follow EU product rules and in the case of food or medicines EU manufacturing rules at the factory. What I have a big problem with is saying that the UK government would have to apply all EU rules across all areas social, environmental, H&S and product so we can trade with them.
I’m a qualified lawyer and I’m not even going to pretend to have an authoritative view on the Vienna Convention. I cited it merely to demonstrate your demonstrably false claim that “as a standard” deals have exit clauses - because if that were true there would not be any need for Art 56.
https://twitter.com/hamandhigh/status/1100501626769559553?s=21
https://twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/1100519134398431233