Quite easy for the Brexit Party to make a unilateral decision (ie no formal deal with Boris) not to put up candidates in Scotland.
They've already put up a few candidates in Scotland. I'd hate to think of the disappointment on their wee faces if CEO Nige unilaterally decided they were being withdrawn.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Parliament wants to stop No Deal, and it has a Speaker who is willing to help it. BJ cocking a snook and childishly repeating the mantra "nur nur No Deal by default" will only make parliament more determined.
As I posted the other day, and one shouldn't rely on this, but if we try and bugger about so as to drop out of the EU by default, typically by a VONC or GE, why wouldn't the EU stop the clock until we have got our act together. Eg the result of a GE may result in a clear cut leave or 2nd ref. It might of course just continue the chaos, but what is to stop them unilaterally extending the deadline to potentially avoid chaos.
That’s really not news. Everyone politically appointed in government, whether minister, staff or advisor, is on three months’ notice - which isn’t particularly unreasonable given they can be dismissed on a whim.
When it happened between the government’s of Brown and Blair, those now moaning would have talked about ensuring essential transition protections for workers.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I think politically it would be extremely tough for Boris to delay a general election.
Jossias Jessop: The Hovercraft goes from Portsmouth to Ryde. (We went on it in April this year. Rather noisy.) I haven't been to Brading but Fishbourne (which is near me) is well worth seeing.
Technically it goes from Southsea. But there's a bus link (free to ticket holders) that runs from the hovercraft terminal to Portsmouth station, town centre and harbour station.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
The Wightlink car ferry goes direct from Portsmouth to Fishbourne, but is no hovercraft. Carisbrooke Castle near Newport is great for kids. Englands Rocket launch station near the Needles is worth a look too.
Thanks. The situation is that these are all things he wants to do: he loves Stonehenge, and I've been putting off visiting (as I fear he's going to be disappointed I've added Avebury). He wants to see the ship we got married on (so that's Portsmouth Historic Dockyard), and wants to go on a hovercraft. He's also fascinated by Romans, and wants to visit a Roman place - so it's either Fishbourne or Portchester Castle, depending on the weather.
We'r'e not getting a family holiday this year (as usual), so it's a sort-of min-break - albeit a rather expensive one a he loves staying at hotels! I'm also planning to leave it rather open-ended aside from Stonehenge, so if he just wants to play on a beach for a few hours he can.
I've done the Needles area - such a lot of military history on one little headland.
Worth clicking on the website link to Brading I left downthread - If you're doing the Hovercraft trip it may well be quicker to take in Brading than detour off to Fishbourne once you're back on North Island. And it would give the hovercraft trip a purpose. Hoping it isn't too windy.
Edit/ and there's a grand beach minutes away from where the hovercraft drops you.
Thanks, I'll look into the logisitics of that - and the beaches (I've walked the IoW coast, but it's a bit of a blur now).
BTW, I love the way you referred to the mainland as 'North Island' !
“Mainland” - wash your mouth out; one island is as good as another!
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
There is a certain irony in the 'take back control' campaign potentially leading to a revival in the power of the crown.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can ion.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
You can be as idealistic as you want but if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 Osborne would have been just as tough with them as Barnier has been with us after Brexit and in the event of No Deal then Scexit in the real world Westminster would be even tougher with Holyrood
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
England’s power to do her traditional “vindictive and harmful” party trick will be much-reduced if Brexit ever actually happens (I personally doubt it will).
Someone upthread was talking about a hovercraft (!) I was genuinely surprised that such a daft ferry service still exists. Vanity gimmicks like that will be impossible to sustain if the public finances are screwed.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
Didn't Salmond want an independent Scotland to have a seat on the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee? If that was asked for, should the rest of UK let them have it?
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I think politically it would be extremely tough for Boris to delay a general election.
I agree. In a world of impossibilities the only option I can see is that he somehow finds a way to delay, perhaps citing he is on the verge of a breakthrough. But I can't see that either, on a moment's reflection.
Looking at it with my maths head on I would say the probabilities are:
No deal: 50% Extension: 35% GE: 25% 2nd Ref: 10% 2nd Coming: 5% Asteroid Strike: 18%
As a matter of common sense, if a clear alternative government emerges, Boris Johnson will have to give way. The idea that a government can lose Parliament’s confidence over a policy and nevertheless enforce that policy by other means against the clear will of Parliament is too ridiculous to contemplate seriously.
The bigger question is whether a clear alternative will emerge.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing ord The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
The suggestion seems to be that Bozo wont resign and wont offer any helpful advice as to any alternative. The position then seems to be that the HoC needs to find some way of indicating majority support for an alternative, relying on the ensuing politics and pressure of media and public opinion to put things in train.
As a matter of common sense, if a clear alternative government emerges, Boris Johnson will have to give way. The idea that a government can lose Parliament’s confidence over a policy and nevertheless enforce that policy by other means against the clear will of Parliament is too ridiculous to contemplate seriously.
The bigger question is whether a clear alternative will emerge.
Ridiculous is the new black when it comes to English politics.
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
They didn't as the Withdrawal Agreement is just the mechanism for leaving the EU ie resolving the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The Political Declaration is non binding and once the Withdrawal Agreement passed anything from staying in the Single Market and Customs Union to a Canada style FTA could have been negotiated in the transition period.
Which was why MPs who rejected the Withdrawal Agreement were idiots to do so unless they really wanted No Deal or nothing but revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU would do
Well you are sort of right - those who rejected the deal either do want No Deal or No Brexit. But I concede that some of them are also idiots.
Not all of them, Stephen Kinnock, Lisa Nandy etc amongst many Labour MPs who voted 3 times against the Withdrawal Agreement but all want a Brexit Deal and oppose No Deal and No Brexit
Well that's what they say in public.
Thought Nandy had said in public with millions of witnesses she would vote for No Deal if it was only option vs No Brexit
Nandy has said she’d back Revoke over No Deal. Caroline Flint and Sarah Champion have Both said they’d back No Deal. If they did, they’d be ending their political careers, so it would be a very big deal to do in reality.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Mr. Dadge, 'Blue Brexit'? What does that mean? Why does it legitimise voting against it if you oppose no deal?
Blue Brexit is the Brexit that TMay worked on without consultation with other parties. I know quite a lot of Labour MPs don't mind it too much, but they've been whipped to vote against it.
No Deal is a chimera. It's been avoided twice and MPs have every faith that it can be avoided a third, fourth, fifth time... Labour MPs are not going to vote for Blue Brexit in order to avoid something that isn't going to happen.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
That's the reasoned and logical argument but it bumps up against human nature. From the EU side, had our divorce been amicable (which it could have been), it wouldn't have been the last divorce. Ultimately, the EU would have evolved into what it should be - a much looser organisation of mutually co-operative free trading sovereign nations. Yes, those wish closer political union (Germany plus Benelux?) should be entirely free to do so if they so wish but it shouldn't be forced on everyone either overtly or covertly.
Some of the attitudes I read toward the prospect of an independent Scotland mirror that - we want to get out of the EU and that's good and if Scotland wants out of "our precious Union" that's bad. No, it's not - it's the same. We can threaten or stamp our feet and we can be mature and recognise the UK has run its course and needs to evolve.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
Logically if MPs are serious about avoiding no-deal, they need to VONC, have an alternative PM who commands are majority ready to go, and have an alternative Brexit strategy agreed. Out of the indicative votes held in March the one that came closest to passing was Ken Clarke's permanent Custom's Union. So Ken Clarke as PM, WA+ Customs Union passes parliament, short extension agreed with EU to pass necessary legislation, and a general election immediately after Brexit. Can't see Corbyn agreeing to it, but if he allows no-deal brexit he will be toast politically.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I think politically it would be extremely tough for Boris to delay a general election.
I agree. In a world of impossibilities the only option I can see is that he somehow finds a way to delay, perhaps citing he is on the verge of a breakthrough. But I can't see that either, on a moment's reflection.
Looking at it with my maths head on I would say the probabilities are:
No deal: 50% Extension: 35% GE: 25% 2nd Ref: 10% 2nd Coming: 5% Asteroid Strike: 18%
I don't see Boris signing up for an extension. And I'm not sure that a VONC/GONU deserves a 35% probability? That's probably a lot closer to 5% IMV.
Say:
No deal - 50% General election 30% Compromise on the withdrawal agreement 10% (including both the EU compromising and Parliament folding) Anything else 10%
Mr. Cicero, point of order: the deal failed primarily because non-Conservatives opposed it.
Most Conservatives backed the deal repeatedly. If you're aghast at us apparently on course for leaving with no deal, those who voted against the deal are worthy of your ire. That certainly includes the ERG, but they're outnumbered many times over by Labour MPs (also the Lib Dems) who opposed the deal.
No, it failed principally because Conservatives did oppose it. Refer to previous discussions.
No it failed because over 400 MPs voted against it. Each of those votes counts equally.
Based on the manifestos, all the Labour MPs had a mandate from the electorate to reject it. None of the Conservative MPs did.
Conservatives put country before party. Labour put party before country.
Which Conservatives do you think were putting country before party? Presumably the ones voting with Jeremy Corbyn?
Every Conservative MP that voted based on what they thought was best for the country and not what would give partisan advantage.
You really are living on a different plane, but I have suspected that for some time.
I know we live in a magical time of evaporating Unionist memes, but a golden oldie repeatedly revived was that Indy uncertainty & SNP property taxes were damaging the Scottish housing market. Lo and behold..
"Home buyers 'move faster in Scotland but slower in London'
Scotland has replaced London as the fastest place for a seller to find a buyer for their home, figures suggest.
In 2014, it took 36 days in London on average to secure a buyer, but this rose to 60 days by last year, according to property portal Rightmove.
In contrast, the average time to secure a buyer fell from 66 days to 41 days over the same period in Scotland."
Upthread someone linked to Sturgeon’s remarks regarding robotic May. That article is well worth a read. Every word strikes me as true.
Don't know about every word, but there's a lot in there which is.
In the context of this morning's discussion, this is interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/nicola-sturgeon-if-we-crash-out-with-no-deal-corbyn-will-be-almost-as-responsible-as-may-or-johnson “I have fought two general elections now as SNP leader, and, in both of them, I have been pretty candid. We would always want to be part of a progressive alternative to a Tory government. That remains the case. That said, I’m no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think his lack of leadership on Brexit in particular … well, if we do crash out without a deal, he will bear almost as much responsibility as Theresa May or Boris Johnson. I can’t see the SNP going into formal coalition with Labour.”...
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
The broken country is more likely to be south of the border, and Scotland will be on the EU side in any negotiations with it.
Mr. Dadge, 'Blue Brexit'? What does that mean? Why does it legitimise voting against it if you oppose no deal?
Blue Brexit is the Brexit that TMay worked on without consultation with other parties. I know quite a lot of Labour MPs don't mind it too much, but they've been whipped to vote against it.
No Deal is a chimera. It's been avoided twice and MPs have every faith that it can be avoided a third, fourth, fifth time... Labour MPs are not going to vote for Blue Brexit in order to avoid something that isn't going to happen.
p.s. Even if some of them do start to get scared at the prospect of No Deal, is BJ going to give them the opportunity to vote for the WA? It's looking unlikely.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
The suggestion seems to be that Bozo wont resign and wont offer any helpful advice as to any alternative. The position then seems to be that the HoC needs to find some way of indicating majority support for an alternative, relying on the ensuing politics and pressure of media and public opinion to put things in train.
I suspect that the Queen's advisers will already be having regular conversations with their narks in the House. Someone will emerge - it won't be via the media pressure / spin. But the Crown will be very very nervous about this, so they would need to be absolutely certain.
And the "Boris won't resign" is guff. PMs don't resign until a successor is identified in any event - you're just saying he won't offer his resignation.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I think politically it would be extremely tough for Boris to delay a general election.
I agree. In a world of impossibilities the only option I can see is that he somehow finds a way to delay, perhaps citing he is on the verge of a breakthrough. But I can't see that either, on a moment's reflection.
Looking at it with my maths head on I would say the probabilities are:
No deal: 50% Extension: 35% GE: 25% 2nd Ref: 10% 2nd Coming: 5% Asteroid Strike: 18%
Johnson has no choice but to deliver No Deal. He then needs a GE asap before its effects begin to kick in. I expect him to win that and be the last Tory PM in my lifetime.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
The broken country is more likely to be south of the border, and Scotland will be on the EU side in any negotiations with it.
Even if it rejoin the EU two thirds of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK but only 44% of UK exports go to the EU.
The UK economy would be hit by No Deal Brexit but the economy of an independent Scotland would be hit even harder
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
What discussions (productive or otherwise) were ongoing?
'Boris Johnson won’t start Brexit talks unless EU moves on backstop'
Why does the EU need to do anything - most of the pain will be suffered by the UK and while they will suffer - its better than giving in to UK demands and watching other countries decide to leave.
As of today’s date, the British government has no negotiating aim. I have been very critical of the EU throughout this process but right now there is nothing they can do except prepare for no deal.
Unless a GONU that commands a majority can be put together and advanced early in the 14 day period. It is becoming increasingly obvious that's the only escape route.
Normally when a government resigns the Queen would send for the leader of the opposition. To depart from accepted practice, she would need a cast-iron guarantee in writing from a majority of MPs that they would support a government of national unity under a named prime minister.
She will send for Corbyn, but he cannot truthfully say to her that he can form a government that will have the support of parliament. This will be a truly painful moment for him, I'm sure. Anyway, at this point she will take advice on alternatives. And she will ask about what's going to happen on 31st October. Of course she has no role, but it will be clear that she is expecting her government to behave responsibly. Having an election at the same time as Brexit is not responsible behaviour.
The suggestion seems to be that Bozo wont resign and wont offer any helpful advice as to any alternative. The position then seems to be that the HoC needs to find some way of indicating majority support for an alternative, relying on the ensuing politics and pressure of media and public opinion to put things in train.
That sounds about right. Boris isn’t going to resign until it’s made clear that a named someone else commands a majority in the HoC, he’s happy to sit it out for a fortnight and go for an election.
The question is then who might command that majority? I can’t see Blackford, nor Swinson, nor the TIG/CUK lot bringing their parties to vote for Corbyn, and anyone else requires over 200 defections from either Lab or Con parties - which would be career suicide for all but a handful of them at the forthcoming election.
The suggestion seems to be that Bozo wont resign and wont offer any helpful advice as to any alternative. The position then seems to be that the HoC needs to find some way of indicating majority support for an alternative, relying on the ensuing politics and pressure of media and public opinion to put things in train.
It wouldn't help him. There are at least two occasions when the outgoing PM has either refused to nominate a successor (1923) or hasn't been asked (1894) and further occasions when either they may have withheld advice (1957) or the Queen has been advised to send for somebody who did not command the support of the Commons (1963).
The Queen, usually via her private secretary, is entitled to ask anyone she likes for advice. She could send for TSE, if she wanted. Certainly if they refuse to offer advice Johnson and Corbyn could not rely on her accepting their word rather than consulting Swinson, Grieve, Hammond, Miliband or more plausibly a respected very senior figure, Clarke or Hermon maybe. In 1957, for example, she consulted Ted Heath and Winston Churchill, who tipped the balance for Macmillan over Butler.
The convention the outgoing PM offer advice is just that - a convention, and both of these numpties have been busy rubbishing conventions.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can imagine it. I’m beginning to think that Unionism simply cannot. David L’s despairing post above is a typical example of the Unionist mindset: forever fighting a rearguard action.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
The broken country is more likely to be south of the border, and Scotland will be on the EU side in any negotiations with it.
Even if it rejoin the EU two thirds of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK but only 44% of UK exports go to the EU.
The UK economy would be hit by No Deal Brexit but the economy of an independent Scotland would be hit even harder
England has no credible path to a sustainable position outside the single market and customs union. Either it forgets the Brexit nonsense, or accepts the terms set by others, including Scotland.
“But what of the LibDems? The logic of “Bollocks to Brexit” suggests that they should stand on a platform of rejoining. But even among hardened Remainers (like me), the prospect of starting the negotiations all over again looks wearying, with no real prospect that the EU will entertain a fresh application for a moment – after the experience of the last 3 years, they would be mad to do so. So would the Lib Dem policy, too, be “make the best of it”?”
Isn’t the answer blisteringly obvious? EFTA as a first step to eventually rejoining the EU.
I think the loyal Mr Palmer's subconscious is having to come up with more and more oblique reasons to rationalise opposition to the Lib Dems.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
I was quite surprised at just how well the EU handled it. They are human like us and I was expecting some clanger to be dropped at some stage and be blown out of all proportion by the Brexiters. But they've pretty much treated the whole process just about as well as it is possible to do. The cosmic cockup balance has been maintained by the idiocy on our side.
Worth reading - though as the tweet points out the headline is more positive than the substance.
This cannot be repeated enough:
A no-deal Brexit can be prevented only by legislation, not by a mere expression of parliamentary opinion, nor by a motion.....
...But any legislation designed to postpone or prevent Brexit has public spending implications. For were the UK to stay in the EU beyond 31 October it would have to make further budget contributions. But standing order 48 requires any charge on public revenue to be recommended by the crown, which, for practical purposes, means a government minister responsible to parliament and through parliament to the people, not backbenchers. So that standing order too would have to be suspended.
The practical difficulties would be enormous. Backbenchers would have to steer the relevant legislation through all of its stages in the Commons, and deal with a host of amendments in committee together with endless filibustering by enraged Brexiteers.
If backbenchers were to succeed in taking over the legislative timetable, they would in effect be taking over the functions of government. Logic surely requires that they themselves become the government. That would require a no-confidence vote in which enough Conservatives would have to abstain or vote against the government to counter Labour Brexiteers prepared to abstain or vote with the government. But a no-confidence vote can only be moved by the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn.
In the end, the only way they can do it is VONC - but then as we've seen, Boris can hold the GE after Oct31, legally.
I think politically it would be extremely tough for Boris to delay a general election.
I agree. In a world of impossibilities the only option I can see is that he somehow finds a way to delay, perhaps citing he is on the verge of a breakthrough. But I can't see that either, on a moment's reflection.
Looking at it with my maths head on I would say the probabilities are:
No deal: 50% Extension: 35% GE: 25% 2nd Ref: 10% 2nd Coming: 5% Asteroid Strike: 18%
Johnson has no choice but to deliver No Deal. He then needs a GE asap before its effects begin to kick in. I expect him to win that and be the last Tory PM in my lifetime.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back after 13 years, even after 1979 Labour got back after 18 years, unless you are over 60 you should still see another Tory Government even on that scenario
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It n.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
The broken country is more likely to be south of the border, and Scotland will be on the EU side in any negotiations with it.
Even if it rejoin the EU two thirds of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK but only 44% of UK exports go to the EU.
The UK economy would be hit by No Deal Brexit but the economy of an independent Scotland would be hit even harder
England has no credible path to a sustainable position outside the single market and customs union. Either it forgets the Brexit nonsense, or accepts the terms set by others, including Scotland.
Most UK exports go to the rest of the world beyond the EU, most Scottish exports go to England, thus England can dictate terms to an independent Scotland even more than the EU can dictate terms to the UK
On topic. Is it a LD resurgence for them and what they stand for? Or is it the remain flavour of the month for vote lending? Particularly considering how toxic Corbyns labour now seen after this slow cooking coup against the Labour leadership?
How does this resurgence stand up in a GE where libs 1, need broad range of policies, 2, have history, and get aggressively attacked on both counts?
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
Is there not a bit of an inconsistency here? Ruth Davidson gets the credit for the seats gained in 2017, but I'm guessing she won't get the blame were they to be lost in an autumn election.
Also, is there not a slight problem with the Lib Dems and Scottish Green given that one is pro-Union and one is pro-independence?
Even on the above poll the Tories would still hold 3 seats in Scotland while Labour would be back to just 1, the LDs would be up to 5 Scottish seats
Glad you’re happy with Unionist parties winning 9 seats and the SNP winning 50 seats.
Perhaps Unionists would get on better if you set higher goals.
Given the SNP won 56 seats in 2015 it could be worse for Unionists
I just feel that Unionists lack that vision thing. What is your goal regarding Scotland? Where do you want to get to?
Without a clear, inspiring, uplifting answer, you cannot even begin to answer the next question: how do you get there?
I could write a vision of a Scotland at peace with itself within the Union. It would be a work of fiction, but I can ion.
The vision is quite simple 'better together' but of course DavidL is right that even more Scottish exports go to England than UK exports go to the EU so Scexit in the event of No Deal Brexit would make Westminster negotiations with Holyrood even tougher than Brussels negotiations with Westminster
We ask for an uplifting vision, and we receive threats.
Do you see the problem here?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side even more.
If and when and harmful if they choose.
You can be as idealistic as you want but if Scotland had voted for independence in 2014 Osborne would have been just as tough with them as Barnier has been with us after Brexit and in the event of No Deal then Scexit in the real world Westminster would be even tougher with Holyrood
That is undoubtedly the case. The fury of the English nationalist elite as the reality of what they have triggered hits home will be off the charts. But England will not be the country the UK is now. It will be poorer and it will have fewer reliable overseas friends, and so less ability to double down.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
Johnson has no choice but to deliver No Deal. He then needs a GE asap before its effects begin to kick in. I expect him to win that and be the last Tory PM in my lifetime.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back after 13 years, even after 1979 Labour got back after 18 years, unless you are over 60 you should still see another Tory Government even on that scenario
But not if the Conservative Party ceases to exist. It is on its last legs now.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
That's the reasoned and logical argument but it bumps up against human nature. From the EU side, had our divorce been amicable (which it could have been), it wouldn't have been the last divorce. Ultimately, the EU would have evolved into what it should be - a much looser organisation of mutually co-operative free trading sovereign nations. Yes, those wish closer political union (Germany plus Benelux?) should be entirely free to do so if they so wish but it shouldn't be forced on everyone either overtly or covertly.
Some of the attitudes I read toward the prospect of an independent Scotland mirror that - we want to get out of the EU and that's good and if Scotland wants out of "our precious Union" that's bad. No, it's not - it's the same. We can threaten or stamp our feet and we can be mature and recognise the UK has run its course and needs to evolve.
If Scotland voted for independence, I think it would certainly be counter-productive to try and punish them for it. We'd want a close relationship on defence and security, for example.
Even more counter-productive, would be attempting to use force to keep Scotland within the Union.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
When you have a negotiating partner who continues to gaslight as you've done in that post by repeating the lie about Enda Kenny agreeing to a technical border, there's nothing to discuss.
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
What discussions (productive or otherwise) were ongoing?
'Boris Johnson won’t start Brexit talks unless EU moves on backstop'
My understanding is that Enda Kenny had a joint committee working with the British team to try and design and validate technological solutions to the border issue. One of the first things that Varadkar did when he was appointed was to terminate these discussions This article [July 2017] sort of touches on the underlying story, but doesn't get all the way there - it explores why Varadkar did that. There were a couple of articles at the time (my google skills are failing me) where Kenny was obliquely critical of that decision.
[Varadkar] "It’s the United Kingdom, it’s Britain that has decided to leave and if they want to put forward smart solutions, technological solutions for borders of the future and all of that that’s up to them.
“We’re not going to be doing that work for them because we don’t think there should be an economic border at all. That is our position. It’s our position in negotiations with the British Government and it’s the very clear position that we have when we engage with the task force that is negotiating on our behalf with the United Kingdom.”
Varadkar went on to say that the government’s position is that there should be no border, so it will not help in designing one.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Most MPs are in favour of the backstop, so there's still a fair chance that we'll end up with one.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
Britain’s decision on Monday to join the American-led effort was an acknowledgment that its efforts to create a European maritime security coalition had not yet been successful; no other European countries have committed warships to protect merchant shipping in the region.
Instead, Britain said it would commit the same two warships it had previously assigned to escort British-flagged ships through the strait to the American-led mission. Britain and the United States are the only two countries contributing to the effort.
Ben Wallace, the British defense secretary, said Britain was “determined to ensure shipping is protected from unlawful threats.”
Johnson has no choice but to deliver No Deal. He then needs a GE asap before its effects begin to kick in. I expect him to win that and be the last Tory PM in my lifetime.
Even after 1997 the Tories got back after 13 years, even after 1979 Labour got back after 18 years, unless you are over 60 you should still see another Tory Government even on that scenario
But not if the Conservative Party ceases to exist. It is on its last legs now.
If it ceases to exist, then some other party will represent the 45% of centre-right voters.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
It's been pretty clear since last December at least that the backstop was a major stumbling block - the refusal to revisit has been going on for that long. The EU refused to change the deal that long ago.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
Given that the UK government doesn't even seem to want to discuss an alternative deal what exactly are the EU supposed to offer?
Can anyone explain in a couple of sentences what a Boris Brexit would entail? As far as I can see Boris is simply saying "not the WA", it's not very helpful.
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
What discussions (productive or otherwise) were ongoing?
'Boris Johnson won’t start Brexit talks unless EU moves on backstop'
My understanding is that Enda Kenny had a joint committee working with the British team to try and design and validate technological solutions to the border issue. One of the first things that Varadkar did when he was appointed was to terminate these discussions This article [July 2017] sort of touches on the underlying story, but doesn't get all the way there - it explores why Varadkar did that. There were a couple of articles at the time (my google skills are failing me) where Kenny was obliquely critical of that decision.
[Varadkar] "It’s the United Kingdom, it’s Britain that has decided to leave and if they want to put forward smart solutions, technological solutions for borders of the future and all of that that’s up to them.
“We’re not going to be doing that work for them because we don’t think there should be an economic border at all. That is our position. It’s our position in negotiations with the British Government and it’s the very clear position that we have when we engage with the task force that is negotiating on our behalf with the United Kingdom.”
Varadkar went on to say that the government’s position is that there should be no border, so it will not help in designing one.
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
What discussions (productive or otherwise) were ongoing?
'Boris Johnson won’t start Brexit talks unless EU moves on backstop'
My understanding is that Enda Kenny had a joint committee working with the British team to try and design and validate technological solutions to the border issue. One of the first things that Varadkar did when he was appointed was to terminate these discussions This article [July 2017] sort of touches on the underlying story, but doesn't get all the way there - it explores why Varadkar did that. There were a couple of articles at the time (my google skills are failing me) where Kenny was obliquely critical of that decision.
[Varadkar] "It’s the United Kingdom, it’s Britain that has decided to leave and if they want to put forward smart solutions, technological solutions for borders of the future and all of that that’s up to them.
“We’re not going to be doing that work for them because we don’t think there should be an economic border at all. That is our position. It’s our position in negotiations with the British Government and it’s the very clear position that we have when we engage with the task force that is negotiating on our behalf with the United Kingdom.”
Varadkar went on to say that the government’s position is that there should be no border, so it will not help in designing one.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
It's border controls at the border that are the issue.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
I was quite surprised at just how well the EU handled it. They are human like us and I was expecting some clanger to be dropped at some stage and be blown out of all proportion by the Brexiters. But they've pretty much treated the whole process just about as well as it is possible to do. The cosmic cockup balance has been maintained by the idiocy on our side.
Given the difference in competence between Brussels and the Court Jesters in London, I would rather have Brussels acting as a restraining influence on our politicians.
If the ultimate destination is a federal Europe then so be it. I never would have said that pre-Brexit.
As of today’s date, the British government has no negotiating aim. I have been very critical of the EU throughout this process but right now there is nothing they can do except prepare for no deal.
I think Martin's comment reflects worse on our parliament than anything else. How is the EU supposed to prepare for Boris Johnson whipping up the right wing press into an anti-EU GE campaign ? How is the EU supposed to take account of Corbyn's ridiculous tribalism when the WA was supported, or at least acquiesced to by every other centre left party in the region most affected by the backstop, Northern Ireland ? How is the EU supposed to take account of the DUP, a party of the 17th century, being the c&s partner to the Tories and who will oppose any deal acceptable to Ireland, a member state that did not ask for Brexit ? We've asked to leave, the EU has not and is not stopping us from leaving. We've been offered a deal which when it is examined in the cold light of day assures markets, sterling and offers us a path to a long term FTA (Which always takes a long time) whilst in the meantime giving us a de facto Customs union with no payments. How was the EU supposed to deal with half the Tories trashing their agreement and the other half being unable to sell water in the desert ? How was the EU supposed to deal with remainers that would play a game of going for a second referendum even though they know there likely aren't the parliamentary numbers to do so and a failure to achieve such an objective could well result in No deal.
I'm absolutely fucking livid with almost everyone (Save perhaps Stephen Lloyd) on this side of the water, leavers and remainers alike. But this is not the EU's fault.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
It's been pretty clear since last December at least that the backstop was a major stumbling block - the refusal to revisit has been going on for that long. The EU refused to change the deal that long ago.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
It is indeed contemptible that you blame Varadkar for something you bear far more responsibility for than he does.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
When you have a negotiating partner who continues to gaslight as you've done in that post by repeating the lie about Enda Kenny agreeing to a technical border, there's nothing to discuss.
He didn't agree to a technical border, but there was a committee looking at it.
You're the second person who posted that it was a lie. I certainly missed that but if you have a link happy to be corrected.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
I have never thought we would leave. However I am also wrong on a lot of things.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
In an odd sort of way, I think MP's have given up caring. The ERG love the idea of No Deal. Many Remainers prefer it to an orderly Brexit.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
It's been pretty clear since last December at least that the backstop was a major stumbling block - the refusal to revisit has been going on for that long. The EU refused to change the deal that long ago.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
It is indeed contemptible that you blame Varadkar for something you bear far more responsibility for than he does.
What a strange post! I've not been involved at all in the negotiations...
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
It's border controls at the border that are the issue.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
Haven't we been around this loop lots of times. Nobody is worried about those obeying the rules. It is those that don't that is the issue.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
In an odd sort of way, I think MP's have given up caring. The ERG love the idea of No Deal. Many Remainers prefer it to an orderly Brexit.
So long as the Tories get the blame, Labour MPs are happy.
The good old days when Enda wasn't feeling the love from Brexiteers.
'Regarding the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, Kenny is on record as saying the possibility of a "Brexit" would cause a "serious difficulty" with maintaining peace in Northern Ireland.[120] Kenny has been described as favouring Britain remaining in the European Union as, were Britain to leave the EU, the peace settlement in Northern Ireland might collapse.[120] This statement was denounced by Theresa Villiers, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as "scaremongering of the worst possible kind"; she stated that the Common Travel Area, the "open border" encompassing the United Kingdom and Ireland, would not be affected by Britain's departure from the EU.'
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
It's border controls at the border that are the issue.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
Haven't we been around this loop lots of times. Nobody is worried about those obeying the rules. It is those that don't that is the issue.
Smuggling has been going on for the whole of human history. You are never going to 100% guarantee that it doesn't occur (clue: it currently occurs across the Irish/UK border).
The trick is to reduce it to acceptable levels not to eliminate it.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
In an odd sort of way, I think MP's have given up caring. The ERG love the idea of No Deal. Many Remainers prefer it to an orderly Brexit.
So long as the Tories get the blame, Labour MPs are happy.
That's the plan. But, it seems to have pissed off a lot of Labour Remain voters.
Am I the only PBer who thinks not leaving on 31st October is the most likely event?
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
In an odd sort of way, I think MP's have given up caring. The ERG love the idea of No Deal. Many Remainers prefer it to an orderly Brexit.
So long as the Tories get the blame, Labour MPs are happy.
As long as the EU gets the blame, Tory MPs are happy(ish).
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
A new cold wind has been blowing from Dublin this week on the vexed issue of the Irish land border. The previous Irish position of preparing for a technological solution to minimise border disruption has been overturned. Enda Kenny, Taoiseach until June, had implicitly accepted that a border would be necessary, and had begun preparations, along with the British, to minimise disruption. Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border. As the new Fine Gael government team led by Leo Varadkar has found its feet all of that has begun to change.
First the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, said that no border is acceptable. Another government spokesman said that no technological solutions could make a border acceptable. Then in Brussels last week, Leo Varadkar said that the border was Britain’s not Ireland’s problem and that Irish work on technological solutions would cease. Most strikingly he also said that the border should be moved to the Irish Sea. What this implied was that no customs checks should be done at the land border, which would remain largely as invisible as it does today. Instead customs checks would occur at seaports and airports.
This idea apparently came as a surprise to officials in Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs, and does not seem to have been based on much thought or analysis. Such ideas are incoherent and unhelpful.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
When you have a negotiating partner who continues to gaslight as you've done in that post by repeating the lie about Enda Kenny agreeing to a technical border, there's nothing to discuss.
He didn't agree to a technical border, but there was a committee looking at it.
You're the second person who posted that it was a lie. I certainly missed that but if you have a link happy to be corrected.
Kenny is on record quite often stating that there would be no return to a border. Which latter of course is used to catch non-compliance, not confirm compliance. Technology is of course a part of the solution but not the entire solution as it stands today.
As of today’s date, the British government has no negotiating aim. I have been very critical of the EU throughout this process but right now there is nothing they can do except prepare for no deal.
I think Martin's comment reflects worse on our parliament than anything else. How is the EU supposed to prepare for Boris Johnson whipping up the right wing press into an anti-EU GE campaign ? How is the EU supposed to take account of Corbyn's ridiculous tribalism when the WA was supported, or at least acquiesced to by every other centre left party in the region most affected by the backstop, Northern Ireland ? How is the EU supposed to take account of the DUP, a party of the 17th century, being the c&s partner to the Tories and who will oppose any deal acceptable to Ireland, a member state that did not ask for Brexit ? We've asked to leave, the EU has not and is not stopping us from leaving. We've been offered a deal which when it is examined in the cold light of day assures markets, sterling and offers us a path to a long term FTA (Which always takes a long time) whilst in the meantime giving us a de facto Customs union with no payments. How was the EU supposed to deal with half the Tories trashing their agreement and the other half being unable to sell water in the desert ? How was the EU supposed to deal with remainers that would play a game of going for a second referendum even though they know there likely aren't the parliamentary numbers to do so and a failure to achieve such an objective could well result in No deal.
I'm absolutely fucking livid with almost everyone (Save perhaps Stephen Lloyd) on this side of the water, leavers and remainers alike. But this is not the EU's fault.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
When you have a negotiating partner who continues to gaslight as you've done in that post by repeating the lie about Enda Kenny agreeing to a technical border, there's nothing to discuss.
He didn't agree to a technical border, but there was a committee looking at it.
You're the second person who posted that it was a lie. I certainly missed that but if you have a link happy to be corrected.
If this committee existed you’d surely be able to show us who sat on it and what it discussed. There would be a few reports about its findings. Some clues as to how far it got. A mention or two of it by Kenny himself. Any links?
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
It's been pretty clear since last December at least that the backstop was a major stumbling block - the refusal to revisit has been going on for that long. The EU refused to change the deal that long ago.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
It is indeed contemptible that you blame Varadkar for something you bear far more responsibility for than he does.
What a strange post! I've not been involved at all in the negotiations...
You voted for Brexit, advocated it publicly, and assisted the campaign. The border is an unavoidable issue created by Brexit, not one created by Leo Varadkar.
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening onand bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
It's border controls at the border that are the issue.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
Haven't we been around this loop lots of times. Nobody is worried about those obeying the rules. It is those that don't that is the issue.
Smuggling has been going on for the whole of human history. You are never going to 100% guarantee that it doesn't occur (clue: it currently occurs across the Irish/UK border).
The trick is to reduce it to acceptable levels not to eliminate it.
Define acceptable. Is more than now acceptable, for example?
They are making the same mistakes again just from the other side of the table. The lesson that needs to be learnt from Brexit is that once a decision to leave has been made then it is hugely counter productive to try and punish a country for its decision. In the end they will just turn their back on you even more.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, g............. be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
One thing I was pondering this morning listening on R4 to all the back and forths is that actually the EU has played this all with a remarkably straight bat, if I may use an English term. They had some red lines which, looking at them, were pretty sensible - no return to sectarian violence in NI, mutual assurance for citizens, and bills paid. I am not sure they have deviated from that from day one and I'm sure that whoever was Brexit Sec at the time could have looked in the EU Member State Leaving Protocol and seen each of these set out clearly.
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
Those asks are reasonable. They've been a bit cheeky on some of the specifics (e.g. on the valuation of the EIB stake) but that's all part of the fun of negotiations.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
Yep - the solution is otherwise a physical border - you can work out how to minimise it but there still needs to be a physical part to it...
It's border controls at the border that are the issue.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
Haven't we been around this loop lots of times. Nobody is worried about those obeying the rules. It is those that don't that is the issue.
Smuggling has been going on for the whole of human history. You are never going to 100% guarantee that it doesn't occur (clue: it currently occurs across the Irish/UK border).
The trick is to reduce it to acceptable levels not to eliminate it.
Well I agree with that, but removing all all checks when we are not in a CU/Single market is madness.
We'll have to see how things develop. Speaking of which, if the EU sticks to their 'no renegotiation line' what does the PM do?
Probably clings mindlessly to no deal. The alternatives remain revocation, referendum, or trying for the deal again.
It slightly amuses that there are people who are criticising Boris for “refusing to negotiate without preconditions” and, at the same time, are applauding the EU for “sticking to their guns” on the backstop
Do the folk who criticise the stubborn inflexibility of the EU while applauding Boris for sticking to his guns afford you a similar degree of amusement?
Not quite the same thing - it's the difference in views on the acceptability of preconditions.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Is it valid when used by the EU?
The identity of the party using that tactic is irrelevant.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
Except the EU is the EU. They negotiated with a government for two years and worked out a deal that was acceptable. The UK has only been "very clear" that it is unacceptable for the past week or so since Johnson was made PM. What is the EU supposed to do, turn on a sixpence? Plus as they probably calculate, if a WA has to get through parliament it is likely (a la Baker et al) not to get through backstop or no backstop and hence why bother to show weakness globally in negotiating for no actual benefit?
It's been pretty clear since last December at least that the backstop was a major stumbling block - the refusal to revisit has been going on for that long. The EU refused to change the deal that long ago.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
Comments
When it happened between the government’s of Brown and Blair, those now moaning would have talked about ensuring essential transition protections for workers.
If and when the Scots vote for independence, Westminster should do everything it possibly can to make sure it is a success. That way we end up with good neighbours, good trade and a relationship that works for mutual benefit rather than one that damages both sides. England cannot afford a broken country on their Northern borders and unfortunately they do have the power to be vindictive and harmful if they choose.
In other news Anderson has been declared NOT fit for the Second Test.
"Stubborn inflexibility" can be a valid negotiating tactic
Someone upthread was talking about a hovercraft (!) I was genuinely surprised that such a daft ferry service still exists. Vanity gimmicks like that will be impossible to sustain if the public finances are screwed.
Looking at it with my maths head on I would say the probabilities are:
No deal: 50%
Extension: 35%
GE: 25%
2nd Ref: 10%
2nd Coming: 5%
Asteroid Strike: 18%
The bigger question is whether a clear alternative will emerge.
I think in this specific case it's unhelpful if you want to get a deal.
The UK has been very clear that it is unacceptable. A constructive way would be to work to find a mutual solution, not to cut off the productive discussions that were ongoing and insist that it is up to the UK to come up with an answer on its own.
No Deal is a chimera. It's been avoided twice and MPs have every faith that it can be avoided a third, fourth, fifth time... Labour MPs are not going to vote for Blue Brexit in order to avoid something that isn't going to happen.
Some of the attitudes I read toward the prospect of an independent Scotland mirror that - we want to get out of the EU and that's good and if Scotland wants out of "our precious Union" that's bad. No, it's not - it's the same. We can threaten or stamp our feet and we can be mature and recognise the UK has run its course and needs to evolve.
Say:
No deal - 50%
General election 30%
Compromise on the withdrawal agreement 10% (including both the EU compromising and Parliament folding)
Anything else 10%
"Home buyers 'move faster in Scotland but slower in London'
Scotland has replaced London as the fastest place for a seller to find a buyer for their home, figures suggest.
In 2014, it took 36 days in London on average to secure a buyer, but this rose to 60 days by last year, according to property portal Rightmove.
In contrast, the average time to secure a buyer fell from 66 days to 41 days over the same period in Scotland."
https://tinyurl.com/yxwsjwfr
In the context of this morning's discussion, this is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/06/nicola-sturgeon-if-we-crash-out-with-no-deal-corbyn-will-be-almost-as-responsible-as-may-or-johnson
“I have fought two general elections now as SNP leader, and, in both of them, I have been pretty candid. We would always want to be part of a progressive alternative to a Tory government. That remains the case. That said, I’m no great fan of Jeremy Corbyn. I think his lack of leadership on Brexit in particular … well, if we do crash out without a deal, he will bear almost as much responsibility as Theresa May or Boris Johnson. I can’t see the SNP going into formal coalition with Labour.”...
I don't think the three requirements (peace, citizens, bills) can be described as punishing.
And the "Boris won't resign" is guff. PMs don't resign until a successor is identified in any event - you're just saying he won't offer his resignation.
They prefer partisan advantage to actually voting for what they think is in the national interest.
The UK economy would be hit by No Deal Brexit but the economy of an independent Scotland would be hit even harder
https://fullfact.org/economy/does-scotland-export-twice-much-england-it-does-rest-world/
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/
'Boris Johnson won’t start Brexit talks unless EU moves on backstop'
https://tinyurl.com/y5eum549
The question is then who might command that majority? I can’t see Blackford, nor Swinson, nor the TIG/CUK lot bringing their parties to vote for Corbyn, and anyone else requires over 200 defections from either Lab or Con parties - which would be career suicide for all but a handful of them at the forthcoming election.
The Queen, usually via her private secretary, is entitled to ask anyone she likes for advice. She could send for TSE, if she wanted. Certainly if they refuse to offer advice Johnson and Corbyn could not rely on her accepting their word rather than consulting Swinson, Grieve, Hammond, Miliband or more plausibly a respected very senior figure, Clarke or Hermon maybe. In 1957, for example, she consulted Ted Heath and Winston Churchill, who tipped the balance for Macmillan over Butler.
The convention the outgoing PM offer advice is just that - a convention, and both of these numpties have been busy rubbishing conventions.
A lot of the actual blame lies with Varadkar for terminating the discussions that were going on to find a solution to the border. Technology / trusted trader schemes in some form are probably the answer.
There has to be a solution. The backstop has proved not to be a solution. Creative minds would find a way to resolve this. But I don't see much creativity on either side.
How does this resurgence stand up in a GE where libs 1, need broad range of policies, 2, have history, and get aggressively attacked on both counts?
Even more counter-productive, would be attempting to use force to keep Scotland within the Union.
[Varadkar] "It’s the United Kingdom, it’s Britain that has decided to leave and if they want to put forward smart solutions, technological solutions for borders of the future and all of that that’s up to them.
“We’re not going to be doing that work for them because we don’t think there should be an economic border at all. That is our position. It’s our position in negotiations with the British Government and it’s the very clear position that we have when we engage with the task force that is negotiating on our behalf with the United Kingdom.”
Varadkar went on to say that the government’s position is that there should be no border, so it will not help in designing one.
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-border-solution-leo-3519923-Jul2017/
I don't see a deal being agreed, therefore the only form of Brexit available would be No Deal. And I just can't see Parliament letting that happen. So Parliament takes back control (by some means or other - potentially a VONC and GONU, or just Letwin - Cooper Mark II) and either asks for and gets an extension or, failing that, Revokes.
Instead, Britain said it would commit the same two warships it had previously assigned to escort British-flagged ships through the strait to the American-led mission. Britain and the United States are the only two countries contributing to the effort.
Ben Wallace, the British defense secretary, said Britain was “determined to ensure shipping is protected from unlawful threats.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/world/middleeast/britain-iran-strait-of-hormuz.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
I expect it won't cease to exist.
But I blame Varadkar. I understand why he did was he did. But it is contemptible.
Quite a lot of Scots (in the Ashcroft poll) actually support Brexit. 38%, as opposed to 50% who oppose it.
Can anyone explain in a couple of sentences what a Boris Brexit would entail? As far as I can see Boris is simply saying "not the WA", it's not very helpful.
If there was a warehouse at Belfast docks I doubt anyone would care about the physical piece.
If the ultimate destination is a federal Europe then so be it. I never would have said that pre-Brexit.
How is the EU supposed to prepare for Boris Johnson whipping up the right wing press into an anti-EU GE campaign ?
How is the EU supposed to take account of Corbyn's ridiculous tribalism when the WA was supported, or at least acquiesced to by every other centre left party in the region most affected by the backstop, Northern Ireland ?
How is the EU supposed to take account of the DUP, a party of the 17th century, being the c&s partner to the Tories and who will oppose any deal acceptable to Ireland, a member state that did not ask for Brexit ?
We've asked to leave, the EU has not and is not stopping us from leaving. We've been offered a deal which when it is examined in the cold light of day assures markets, sterling and offers us a path to a long term FTA (Which always takes a long time) whilst in the meantime giving us a de facto Customs union with no payments.
How was the EU supposed to deal with half the Tories trashing their agreement and the other half being unable to sell water in the desert ?
How was the EU supposed to deal with remainers that would play a game of going for a second referendum even though they know there likely aren't the parliamentary numbers to do so and a failure to achieve such an objective could well result in No deal.
I'm absolutely fucking livid with almost everyone (Save perhaps Stephen Lloyd) on this side of the water, leavers and remainers alike. But this is not the EU's fault.
You're the second person who posted that it was a lie. I certainly missed that but if you have a link happy to be corrected.
'Regarding the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, Kenny is on record as saying the possibility of a "Brexit" would cause a "serious difficulty" with maintaining peace in Northern Ireland.[120] Kenny has been described as favouring Britain remaining in the European Union as, were Britain to leave the EU, the peace settlement in Northern Ireland might collapse.[120] This statement was denounced by Theresa Villiers, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as "scaremongering of the worst possible kind"; she stated that the Common Travel Area, the "open border" encompassing the United Kingdom and Ireland, would not be affected by Britain's departure from the EU.'
The trick is to reduce it to acceptable levels not to eliminate it.
First the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, said that no border is acceptable. Another government spokesman said that no technological solutions could make a border acceptable. Then in Brussels last week, Leo Varadkar said that the border was Britain’s not Ireland’s problem and that Irish work on technological solutions would cease. Most strikingly he also said that the border should be moved to the Irish Sea. What this implied was that no customs checks should be done at the land border, which would remain largely as invisible as it does today. Instead customs checks would occur at seaports and airports.
This idea apparently came as a surprise to officials in Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs, and does not seem to have been based on much thought or analysis. Such ideas are incoherent and unhelpful.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/irish-border-and-brexit/