Mr 67, May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable.
You don't even need that trust. The backstop was designed to be mutually uncomfortable, and our negotiators have done their jobs. Neither side will want to be stuck in it.
"Nearly 50 people, including actors Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, were charged on Tuesday in what federal authorities say was a $25 million scam to help wealthy Americans get their children into elite universities like Yale and Stanford.
The most sweeping college admissions fraud scheme ever unearthed in the United States was masterminded at a small college-preparation company based in Newport Beach, California, prosecutors said. It relied on bribes to coaches, phony test takers and even doctored photos misrepresenting non-athletic applicants as elite competitors to gain admissions for the offspring of rich parents."
I refuse to believe that the ERG - even the ERG - are going to be so moronically stupid as to turn down a third opportunity to secure Brexit.
Why would you refuse to believe that with all the evidence that’s available and in front of you?
I don't know! It just doesn't compute. This. Is. What. They. Want. Why don't they want it?
It does compute to me, funnily enough as a Remainer. I voted Remain because I thought EU membership was the best for the country. But the vote went the other way, and maybe I can accept the result, get with the programme. Yes Britain will be damaged by Brexit, but I didn't vote for it. Seeking to limit that damage is a worthwhile endeavour to me.
If you are a Leaver, you didn't vote for damage limitation. You voted to make things better. All the practical downsides either don't exist, have nothing to do with Brexit, or are somebody else's fault. So why should you leave an organisation, where you have a say to a situation where that organisation simply tells what to do and you have no say? That wasn't what you voted for.
That's ok for the ones that admit that staying in is better than what we have gotten as a deal. The ones who will see that happen but are not yet admitting it get my goat.
But the deal is dead. MV4 is already been talked of because MV3 might also fail, which is telling. Plus Bercow looking to become a remainer hero.
Let he who has never been in denial cast the first stone. I have certainly been there, pursuing a project long after it should be clear the gig is up
Back the deal and you back staying in the EU. Don't back the deal and we stay in the EU. Hmm.
How do you deal with morons like this?
He talks like an idiotic Twitter troll.
What is particularly ridiculous is that all this tooing and froing is about the Withdrawal Agreement, and possible backstop, not about that final deal with the EU. I honestly don't really care about the WA, I can stomach almost anything for a couple of years, it's what comes after that that really matters. We are simply wasting time arguing about something which does not matter in the long term.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
Voting for an extension is pointless. It's admitting that Parliament is an obstruction not an agent to implementation. What will change? What can change? Remain MPs are there to obstruct only.
If the SNP succeed on getting a referendum on independence and win it, will they happy if the terms are set by those who are unionist?
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After I think. I just thought it was an interesting story as I have seen Steel on the TV saying you should not condemn a dead man who cannot speak for himself in the past.
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After I think. I just thought it was an interesting story as I have seen Steel on the TV saying you should not condemn a dead man who cannot speak for himself in the past.
and as I've stated for weeks I don't think Parliament really cares what situation we end up in provided individual MPs can point the blame (or at least some of it) at others.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
The ERG need to back TM deal now and bank the last chance to secure brexit. At the end of the day we will be out of the political institution which is a step along the way to our independence from Brussels . If the EU don’t then act in good faith we can still walk away, and go WTO
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
That would require the ERG to face some reality, take some responsibility and do some work.
Whereas self-obsessed posturing is so much more fun.
Sometimes I wonder if all the cheap alcohol, portraits of Churchill on the wall etc encourage our politicians to behave as arseholes.
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
I can only say that up to now, most former Remain Conservatives have shown remarkable forebearance to the ERG, and that must now be at breaking point.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
Not that tubby and the beard were the only ones about whom there have been rumblings
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
David Steel was a politician. They are judged by different standards. You might say he's a lying cnut (but you probably won't because you're far too polite) but I would.
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
Revolutions only succeed when someone grasps hold of them and puts the more radical supporters to the sword. Trying to pander to and accommodate them never works.
If, and I do not expect it, a deal does go through, then the Tories should do whatever it takes, even adopting half the Labour manifesto, to avoid being beholden to the DUP. Even if it is a rigid adherence to principle and not just gamesmanship, they are simply infuriating.
The ERG need to back TM deal now and bank the last chance to secure brexit. At the end of the day we will be out of the political institution which is a step along the way to our independence from Brussels . If the EU don’t then act in good faith we can still walk away, and go WTO
The ERG on their own wouldn't be enough to pass the deal, would it? I think you'd still need some of the Tory Remainer rebels / DUP / Brexit-friendly Labour MPs.
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
You would think they would take the WA. See us actually leave the EU and then get rid of Theresa,
Get a new Brexiteer leader and a new cabinet then hold an election in the Summer or autumn to get a majority to be able to move forwards with the trade talks (and the majority gives them a cushion if the trade talks go baldly and we need to have a rethink)
Can't understand why they have got so fixated on the WA unless they are all mouth and trousers and when push comes to shove they don't actually want to leave...
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
Don't forget Thorpe.
Had some 'characters' those Liberals. Freud had some interesting associates in his later years
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
I can only say that up to now, most former Remain Conservatives have shown remarkable forebearance to the ERG, and that must now be at breaking point.
The Conservative Party has changed. It used to be an organised conspiracy against the public interest. It is now two different disorganised conspiracies against the public interest.
On MV3 and 4. I see no reason for the DUP to support that. Labour seem to have kept their rebels consistently down to a handful and there would appear to always be more than a handful of bitter ender ERGs . The government has to change the recipe. Means go for soft Brexit, get the DUP and Labour at least partly on board and face down the Kipper faction. That's the only path through.
"Nearly 50 people, including actors Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, were charged on Tuesday in what federal authorities say was a $25 million scam to help wealthy Americans get their children into elite universities like Yale and Stanford.
The most sweeping college admissions fraud scheme ever unearthed in the United States was masterminded at a small college-preparation company based in Newport Beach, California, prosecutors said. It relied on bribes to coaches, phony test takers and even doctored photos misrepresenting non-athletic applicants as elite competitors to gain admissions for the offspring of rich parents."
I think their offence was perhaps to try to undercut the existing procedure of donating a couple of million to the college library fund. The cheapskates.
I can give you 10 billion reasons why the EU won't mind too much. Membership fees.
There are no extra fees once we enter the backstop, other than our remaining debts under the withdrawal agreement - and by 2022 those are 75% paid off (by 2024 it's sub 1 bill a year and dropping)
The ERG need to back TM deal now and bank the last chance to secure brexit. At the end of the day we will be out of the political institution which is a step along the way to our independence from Brussels . If the EU don’t then act in good faith we can still walk away, and go WTO
I think it's too late. For every ERG'er who goes for the deal a Tory Remainer (thinking there is now the very real chance to stop Brexit) will vote against.
I don’t want a No Deal exit. But that will happen unless the government or Parliament do something.
And I don’t see what they are doing to stop it.
The EU should only be prepared to grant a short extension to implement the Deal legislation.
But, I suspect the temptation to kick the can down the road, to avoid harm to themselves, will be too great to resist. And, that's how the ERG won't win.
"Before the backstop kicks in though, it’s also possible under the terms of the withdrawal agreement to extend the transition period. If this happens the UK would go on making some contributions to the EU budget. The size of those contributions would have to be negotiated if the UK requested a transition extension."
Now let me guess … who decided what happens during this period? Even if it was us, do you think the Remainer MPs would hurry things along? Keir Starmer, for instance?
and as I've stated for weeks I don't think Parliament really cares what situation we end up in provided individual MPs can point the blame (or at least some of it) at others.
There's certainly an element of that. Brexit is failing. No-one wants to be the author.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After I think. I just thought it was an interesting story as I have seen Steel on the TV saying you should not condemn a dead man who cannot speak for himself in the past.
"Before the backstop kicks in though, it’s also possible under the terms of the withdrawal agreement to extend the transition period. If this happens the UK would go on making some contributions to the EU budget. The size of those contributions would have to be negotiated if the UK requested a transition extension."
Now let me guess … who decided what happens during this period? Even if it was us, do you think the Remainer MPs would hurry things along? Keir Starmer, for instance?
Do I trust the EU? Did Greece?
That's not the backstop. That's a possible extension to the withdrawal period. Which is only available by mutual consent. We can't be forced into it, we have to request it.
It's got nothing to do with the backstop, it's got nothing to do with being forced into anything, there's no power being surrendered to the EU there. We have total unilateral veto rights on that, and have done so all along.
I don't want to besmirch my computer by reading the Mail on it so could you give details as to when Steel supposedly knew about Fat Cyril ? Was it before, during or after.
After. He asked him in 1979 and Smith didn't deny but said police took no action. The dwarf decided it was before he was a liberal mp so nothing to do with him. He was happy to sit alongside a nonce in parliament. Doesn't say if he knew about Freud
completely off topic - 2 people watching the news in the breakout area at work.
Corbyn pops up and they both start groaning and laying into how bad he is. Then they said "but he is well educated"
I didn't know these people but god was I tempted to tell them about his a level results.
Well he got access to a top notch education, but failed to take advantage.
To be fair on Jezzas undistinguished academic career, it wasn't as if he was trying very hard, his interests were elsewhere, more a drop out than a chucking out.
Its not as if we have been very well served by Oxbridge graduate politicians over the years!
Grew up in Rochdale. Was introduced to the fat fuck on the market one Friday morning when I was around 10 years old shoppinb with my mum. He scared the bejesus out of me. Not just his size. It was the look in his eyes when he smiled at us. His eyes didn't smile, only his mouth.
this is why the Deal was so good. We got out of all the political stuff, got control of farming, fishing and a whole host of other stuff, got an end to freedom of movement for those who were othered by that stuff and stopped having to pay over vast sums of money. Yes the Customs union stuff is rubbish but it would only have been temporary as it gave us some trade benefits without having to pay.
I do understand the DUP position given their fear of being sold out to Ireland but the ERG are just f*cking lunatics for rejecting this.
One thing is clear - any strategy there might have been to blame the EU for Brexit’s fall-out is in tatters.
The EU really do come across as the sensible adults in the room.....
Exactly. Anyone who still believes that if we suddenly free ourselves of the EU we are going to transform into some turbo-charged, go-getting, world beater nation really hasn't been paying attention over the last couple of years.
Perhaps there should be another option on a second referendum: "would you prefer to abolish Westminster, sack our 600 MPs and be governed from Brussels" It would get my vote!
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
I don’t want a No Deal exit. But that will happen unless the government or Parliament do something.
And I don’t see what they are doing to stop it.
The significance of today's vote is that if we arrive at five minutes to midnight, May has to revoke, or go down in history below Cameron in the Prime Ministers league table, and likely take her party down with her.
Sigh. Do you think that a Parliament with a Remain majority is going to hurry things along? A simple question. Looking at the past few months, you know the answer to that. We're going nowhere with these MPs.
We'd have to rely on the EU becoming trustworthy or the MP balance changing. I accept you trust them, but that and £3 will buy you a pint of beer up here.
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
It really is, and with the clarifications won by the PM and Cox a few days ago it really did remove the random element of Ireland using the veto against any long term deal the commission would have agreed as we could then begin the arbitration process and exercise the option to leave the backstop once it was done.
Truly it is a good deal, especially with the addition of the bad faith arbitration. It gave us 45 ready made trade deals for the medium term with much less time pressure to renew them which would allow for someone competent to take over from Fox and start the hard work.
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
You would think they would take the WA. See us actually leave the EU and then get rid of Theresa,
Get a new Brexiteer leader and a new cabinet then hold an election in the Summer or autumn to get a majority to be able to move forwards with the trade talks (and the majority gives them a cushion if the trade talks go baldly and we need to have a rethink)
Can't understand why they have got so fixated on the WA unless they are all mouth and trousers and when push comes to shove they don't actually want to leave...
A psychiatrist writes:
If you spend enough time telling other people that unicorns exist, then eventually you start to believe it yourself.
"But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate."
I'm sure you know the legal wherewithal better than I do, but didn't the AG say that it would be very difficult to prove 'bad faith' and in essence we wouldn't do it?
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine.
The EU is not committing to implementing a technical solution to the Irish border. They are committing to entertain the possibility that such a solution might be possible, despite the fact that any infrastructure or checks must be ruled out. It's a wild goose chase for Brexiteers.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine.
The EU is not committing to implementing a technical solution to the Irish border. They are committing to entertain the possibility that such a solution might be possible, despite the fact that any infrastructure or checks must be ruled out. It's a wild goose chase for Brexiteers.
So we need to stop doing the VAT and Customs and Excise checks as well then?
"But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate."
I'm sure you know the legal wherewithal better than I do, but didn't the AG say that it would be very difficult to prove 'bad faith' and in essence we wouldn't do it?
Not really, one scenario is that the commission negotiates an acceptable deal, the UK government legislates to pass it but Ireland veto because they don't like it, we can reasonably say that the EU negotiated in bad faith knowing that the deal would be voted down by one of its members. Essentially that arbitration process has handed the power to the commission, which works very much in our favour as we'd have been dealing with one agenda, not 27.
Additionally, the backstop gives us a lot of breathing room, we need 5-7 years in it to establish our international trading position, get trade deals signed from the safety of the customs union.
Scenario: tomorrow hoc votes to extend a50 to June 30 if deal passes . Eu say only until May 22nd due to EU elections . Tm agrees to this date, her deal goes back next week and falls again , she finally resigns and offers to stay on as caretaker until successor chosen , BJO wins , tries to secure changes , EU says no, bjo calls GE to get mandate , parliament is dissolved, and we no deal on May 22nd
We don’t hear much from Mortimer and his Golden Rule these days.
He said "dream on" to me earlier after I speculated about cabinet ministers voting for the Spelman amendment. (They didn't quite, but an abstention is good enough.)
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine.
The EU is not committing to implementing a technical solution to the Irish border. They are committing to entertain the possibility that such a solution might be possible, despite the fact that any infrastructure or checks must be ruled out. It's a wild goose chase for Brexiteers.
So we need to stop doing the VAT and Customs and Excise checks as well then?
There are no systematic VAT or Customs and Excise checks at the border.
this is why the Deal was so good. We got out of all the political stuff, got control of farming, fishing and a whole host of other stuff, got an end to freedom of movement for those who were othered by that stuff and stopped having to pay over vast sums of money. Yes the Customs union stuff is rubbish but it would only have been temporary as it gave us some trade benefits without having to pay.
I do understand the DUP position given their fear of being sold out to Ireland but the ERG are just f*cking lunatics for rejecting this.
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
The EU is sincere in humouring the UK about technology eventually being the solution. It's a bit like Fusion. Why rule out the possibility?
A summary of part of Cox's opinion. ..."if there is a failure because of “intractable differences” then the UK has no lawful means of unilaterally ending the backstop protocol."
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
A summary of part of Cox's opinion. ..."if there is a failure because of “intractable differences” then the UK has no lawful means of unilaterally ending the backstop protocol."
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
The EU is sincere in humouring the UK about technology eventually being the solution. It's a bit like Fusion. Why rule out the possibility?
Scenario: tomorrow hoc votes to extend a50 to June 30 if deal passes . Eu say only until May 22nd due to EU elections . Tm agrees to this date, her deal goes back next week and falls again , she finally resigns and offers to stay on as caretaker until successor chosen , BJO wins , tries to secure changes , EU says no, bjo calls GE to get mandate , parliament is dissolved, and we no deal on May 22nd
this is why the Deal was so good. We got out of all the political stuff, got control of farming, fishing and a whole host of other stuff, got an end to freedom of movement for those who were othered by that stuff and stopped having to pay over vast sums of money. Yes the Customs union stuff is rubbish but it would only have been temporary as it gave us some trade benefits without having to pay.
I do understand the DUP position given their fear of being sold out to Ireland but the ERG are just f*cking lunatics for rejecting this.
I guess they didn't believe it. They were right to do so, if that's the case.
Scenario: tomorrow hoc votes to extend a50 to June 30 if deal passes . Eu say only until May 22nd due to EU elections . Tm agrees to this date, her deal goes back next week and falls again , she finally resigns and offers to stay on as caretaker until successor chosen , BJO wins , tries to secure changes , EU says no, bjo calls GE to get mandate , parliament is dissolved, and we no deal on May 22nd
No Deal in May does seem the likeliest outcome, unless enough opposition MPs come round to supporting the deal to avoid it.
Scenario: tomorrow hoc votes to extend a50 to June 30 if deal passes . Eu say only until May 22nd due to EU elections . Tm agrees to this date, her deal goes back next week and falls again , she finally resigns and offers to stay on as caretaker until successor chosen , BJO wins , tries to secure changes , EU says no, bjo calls GE to get mandate , parliament is dissolved, and we no deal on May 22nd
Not sure Big John Owls is in such a position. Though, doubt he could be any worse.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine.
The EU is not committing to implementing a technical solution to the Irish border. They are committing to entertain the possibility that such a solution might be possible, despite the fact that any infrastructure or checks must be ruled out. It's a wild goose chase for Brexiteers.
So we need to stop doing the VAT and Customs and Excise checks as well then?
There are no systematic VAT or Customs and Excise checks at the border.
There are intelligence led operations which include Customs and Excise on both sides of the border stopping vehicles just after they cross or even as they cross when they believe them to be involved in criminal activity or tax evasion. There are cameras at major border crossings already and there has been an increase in customs activity over the last few years to deal with fuel smuggling.
There have also been a whole series of operations over the last couple of years to deal with people smuggling which have involved the Garda stopping buses at the border to remove people suspected of being illegal immigrants.
Perhaps the mutual incomprehension between Brexiteers lies in the fact that some of them wanted to be Canada to the EU's USA, but others wanted to be the Confederacy.
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
this is why the Deal was so good. We got out of all the political stuff, got control of farming, fishing and a whole host of other stuff, got an end to freedom of movement for those who were othered by that stuff and stopped having to pay over vast sums of money. Yes the Customs union stuff is rubbish but it would only have been temporary as it gave us some trade benefits without having to pay.
I do understand the DUP position given their fear of being sold out to Ireland but the ERG are just f*cking lunatics for rejecting this.
Indeed.
It is quite remarkable that finally, after about 3 and a half years of war about Brexit, pretty much everyone on this website agrees about something
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
The EU is sincere in humouring the UK about technology eventually being the solution. It's a bit like Fusion. Why rule out the possibility?
Blah blah blah.
Indeed that's what the EU thinks about the technology "solution"
A summary of part of Cox's opinion. ..."if there is a failure because of “intractable differences” then the UK has no lawful means of unilaterally ending the backstop protocol."
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
Yes. It wasn't a bad deal.
I have to admit I have come round to TM deal it’s a lot better than the lazy mps realise , and the backstop actually has some benefits to the uk giving us frictionless trade without having to pay in and no fom. It’s probably the best we can get for now , dup and erg need to grow up and think about the good of the country and concentrate on destroying Marxist Corbyn
Trying to put myself in the ERG’s shoes and understand their thinking... I’ll pretend I’m Steve Baker. Baker was a huge behind-the-scenes apparatchik for the Leave campaign, cleverly working the angles and representing the harder Brexit wonkish Eurosceptics (such as Cash and Redwood).
Baker has dedicated a significant part of his life to getting the UK out of the EU and deserves accolades for his orchestration of the Leave campaign. You’d therefore think he would grab the opportunity to complete his life’s work and back May’s Deal, to at least ensure we leave.
But he didn’t, and he shows no sign of intending to do so.
Given how much it means to him I can only think that his position is a principled one. I think his problem is that he, and other hardcore Brexiteers like him, have come to represent a portion of the electorate who will only accept a pure, hard, yet unachievable Brexit. It has been a mistake by people like Baker, who surely knew it would never be easy, to convince these voters that a pure Brexit could be done. You’ve only got to see the hard Kipperesque leavers on Twitter to witness their intransigence. They will settle for nothing less than the perfect Brexit, and Baker and co know they are boxed into a corner on that.
By voting for May’s Deal they’d effectively be seen as traitors and would kiss goodbye to all their supporters, to the detriment of the other thing they love, the Tory party.
My issue with people like Steve Baker (and I'm not picking on him) is that:
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit. 2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
I can only say that up to now, most former Remain Conservatives have shown remarkable forebearance to the ERG, and that must now be at breaking point.
The Conservative Party has changed. It used to be an organised conspiracy against the public interest. It is now two different disorganised conspiracies against the public interest.
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
Afaicr: Yes, for NI only, and yes.
No, the EU was loath to give it to us but they extended the backstop to the whole of the UK, then in another concession they gave us a reasonably easy way out. There's only so many times they could say "that's not good enough" before we would start the abritration process.
completely off topic - 2 people watching the news in the breakout area at work.
Corbyn pops up and they both start groaning and laying into how bad he is. Then they said "but he is well educated"
I didn't know these people but god was I tempted to tell them about his a level results.
Well he got access to a top notch education, but failed to take advantage.
And he's the leader of the opposition while we are on an internet forum.
I wouldn't trade my life for his. He's done fuck all that I'm jealous of, apart from his earning power. And "earning" is being generous, like the vast majority of the great and the good.
May I ask if you trust the EU to act in good faith? If you do, the May deal is acceptable. I'm cynical about politicians but I'd prefer it to be our own gobshites making the decision rather than European gobshites who we have no control over.
I suspect I'm not alone in that. I'd go along with Mrs May's deal because the European gobshites won't be able to stop themselves making things much worse.
Edit: But I'm a softish Leaver.
But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate.
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
The EU is sincere in humouring the UK about technology eventually being the solution. It's a bit like Fusion. Why rule out the possibility?
Blah blah blah.
Indeed that's what the EU thinks about the technology "solution"
Honestly, it's people like you that drive the country to the brink of no deal.
Both the back boxes have been retrieved after the Boeing 737Max crash the other day. The Ethiopian authorities are so happy with the way the Americans and Boeing have handled things so far they're sending the boxes to be analysed at BEA.
Which is in Paris.
Yes, the home country of Boeing's biggest rival (it sounds like we were in the running for it as well).
That's got to hurt the pride of Boeing and the FAA.
And in related news, the scuttlebut is that data from another satellite system shows the flight had a very similar profile to the one that crashed at the end of last year, and it was this info that caused Canada and the US to finally stop flights.
Possibly the a/c was registered in France? A lot of airlines register their aircraft in developed countries to reassure their passengers that they are well regulated. A lot of Aeroflot's planes are registered in France for instance.
Perhaps the mutual incomprehension between Brexiteers lies in the fact that some of them wanted to be Canada to the EU's USA, but others wanted to be the Confederacy.
Comments
Edit: No country protection !
And I don’t see what they are doing to stop it.
If the SNP succeed on getting a referendum on independence and win it, will they happy if the terms are set by those who are unionist?
I don't expect an answer.
1. The WA is not the endpoint. We can still use the WA to move to a WTO Brexit.
2. The Irish border backstop - especially given what's changed in the last week - is completely misunderstood.
Anyway. I'm livid with the lot of them. I'm sorely tempted to become an uber-Remainer, just to piss off the ERG. Really, it's only the inevitable gloating from Scott_P that holds me back.
"Neither side will want to be stuck in it."
I can give you 10 billion reasons why the EU won't mind too much. Membership fees.
Whereas self-obsessed posturing is so much more fun.
Sometimes I wonder if all the cheap alcohol, portraits of Churchill on the wall etc encourage our politicians to behave as arseholes.
Are you under the impression that the backstop involves membership fees?
https://fullfact.org/europe/if-we-go-backstop-will-uk-be-making-any-financial-contributions-eu-period/
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1105947029958737921?s=21
read that short version
David Steel was a politician. They are judged by different standards. You might say he's a lying cnut (but you probably won't because you're far too polite) but I would.
Get a new Brexiteer leader and a new cabinet then hold an election in the Summer or autumn to get a majority to be able to move forwards with the trade talks (and the majority gives them a cushion if the trade talks go baldly and we need to have a rethink)
Can't understand why they have got so fixated on the WA unless they are all mouth and trousers and when push comes to shove they don't actually want to leave...
Corbyn pops up and they both start groaning and laying into how bad he is.
Then they said "but he is well educated"
I didn't know these people but god was I tempted to tell them about his a level results.
Freud had some interesting associates in his later years
The government motion as amended passed by a much wider margin than Yvette’s original!
The cheapskates.
The time to get this done was yesterday.
But, I suspect the temptation to kick the can down the road, to avoid harm to themselves, will be too great to resist. And, that's how the ERG won't win.
From your reference.
"Before the backstop kicks in though, it’s also possible under the terms of the withdrawal agreement to extend the transition period. If this happens the UK would go on making some contributions to the EU budget. The size of those contributions would have to be negotiated if the UK requested a transition extension."
Now let me guess … who decided what happens during this period? Even if it was us, do you think the Remainer MPs would hurry things along? Keir Starmer, for instance?
Do I trust the EU? Did Greece?
That's a possible extension to the withdrawal period. Which is only available by mutual consent. We can't be forced into it, we have to request it.
It's got nothing to do with the backstop, it's got nothing to do with being forced into anything, there's no power being surrendered to the EU there. We have total unilateral veto rights on that, and have done so all along.
Its not as if we have been very well served by Oxbridge graduate politicians over the years!
I do understand the DUP position given their fear of being sold out to Ireland but the ERG are just f*cking lunatics for rejecting this.
Perhaps there should be another option on a second referendum: "would you prefer to abolish Westminster, sack our 600 MPs and be governed from Brussels" It would get my vote!
Imagine you have a contract with someone. They have to deliver you 100 fish a year. You have to pay them £100.
If they stop sending the fish, you don't send the money.
In this case, it's terribly simple. If you believe the EU is sincere about implementing a technical solution to the Irish border, then the deal is fine. If you do not believe it, then you have to also believe that the international arbitration panel is biased against the UK, that we'd never get a fair hearing, and we couldn't use our powers as a sovereign nation to unilaterally exit the treaty...
Bear in mind that the Withdrawal Agreement does not make UK law subservient to the ECJ. There is no "international court" with the power to order the UK to put up borders, or somesuch.
It's bonkers.
Sigh. Do you think that a Parliament with a Remain majority is going to hurry things along? A simple question. Looking at the past few months, you know the answer to that. We're going nowhere with these MPs.
We'd have to rely on the EU becoming trustworthy or the MP balance changing. I accept you trust them, but that and £3 will buy you a pint of beer up here.
Truly it is a good deal, especially with the addition of the bad faith arbitration. It gave us 45 ready made trade deals for the medium term with much less time pressure to renew them which would allow for someone competent to take over from Fox and start the hard work.
If you spend enough time telling other people that unicorns exist, then eventually you start to believe it yourself.
"But if the EU is not acting in good faith, then we abrogate."
I'm sure you know the legal wherewithal better than I do, but didn't the AG say that it would be very difficult to prove 'bad faith' and in essence we wouldn't do it?
Additionally, the backstop gives us a lot of breathing room, we need 5-7 years in it to establish our international trading position, get trade deals signed from the safety of the customs union.
But I am pleased to heat we pay nothing during the backstop period, assuming we ever get there. Does that mean free use of the Customs union and single market and no FOM?
There have also been a whole series of operations over the last couple of years to deal with people smuggling which have involved the Garda stopping buses at the border to remove people suspected of being illegal immigrants.