A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Mr. Observer, if Varadkar's attempt to prevent any kind of border results in the hardest border possible then might one not venture to assert that perhaps his approach has not been conducive to achieving his aims?
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?
Carlotta posted a useful link at 10:10
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly collaboration
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.
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?
Carlotta posted a useful link at 10:10
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly
So, no committee. And your contention is that Varadeker ended these quiet contacts? What is your evidence for this?
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?
Carlotta posted a useful link at 10:10
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly collaboration
Enda Kenny stepped down on June 13th, 2017. Brexit negotiations began on June 19th, 2017.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
When we leave - deal or no deal - what will be the point of the LDs? To get us back in the EU? Under any terms? Not a good look.
If we leave with no deal then the chaos will be a good selling point for the EU. If we leave with a deal that keeps us close, there's a case for rejoining to influence the rules we're bound by,
There will always be a space for a pro freedom, pro business, internationalist, socially liberal party. I hope mine becomes that. It's not currently either Labour or the Tories.
Mr. Observer, if Varadkar's attempt to prevent any kind of border results in the hardest border possible then might one not venture to assert that perhaps his approach has not been conducive to achieving his aims?
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.
..................
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?
Good question. Of course if it is acceptable to remove all checks we could remove them from everywhere. It would save a lot of money at our ports and airports. if we are happy with an open border with Ireland why not with every other country.
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.
Clearly untrue unless you are suggesting the EU would break its own rules to allow Scotland to join immediately without going through the normal treaty process.
And of course based on your own personal desire to see England broken for having the temerity to wantbyo leave your beloved EU.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Except Varadkar has also said Ireland is willing to explore technological solutions. The problem is none have been presented.
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.
Clearly untrue unless you are suggesting the EU would break its own rules to allow Scotland to join immediately without going through the normal treaty process.
And of course based on your own personal desire to see England broken for having the temerity to wantbyo leave your beloved EU.
I don't want to see England broken. I want to see it playing a leading role in the European Union including joining the Euro.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Ordered - or was ordered.
That’s a good question. Certainly if Kenny’s optimism had continued, it would have precluded the EU from making the border in NI the centrepiece of their strategy.
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.
No, in this case the blame is 100% on the UK's side. The reason for this is very simple: as @edmundintokyo pointed out on the previous thread, if Boris were genuinely trying to agree a deal by playing hardball, he wouldn't have boxed himself in with a deadline which he must know perfectly well is impossible to meet - remember that he has said we'll leave 'do or die' on Macron's October 31st date even if the EU folds and says 'yes, OK, we think we can ditch the backstop but to formalise it we'll have to wait until the new commission is in place.'. That is completely bonkers by any standard.
Absolute nonsense. There was a us eu negotiation and deal to be signed, t-tip that was killed by Our continental cousins rising up against it, riots at the gates of Brussels, farmers dumping to block the way etc...
UK won’t stop our trade deal with US in same way. We won’t rise up and block it in same way.
There are so many imponderables in the next few weeks.
If it is correct that a VONC can only be called by the Leader of the Opposition, then the first question to address is this:
What are the prime objectives of LOTO?
Assumption that he is more Brexity than his party.
He wants a Tory owned Brexit for political advantage. The harder it is the greater his advantage?
The current HOC is unlikely to give JC a majority in a Vote of Confidence, so his chances of assuming the title of PM in this Parliament is limited (although hubris and delusion could blur his judgement on this?). The most probable effect of a successful VONC is an election.
He wants an election, but does he want it before or after Brexit?
When is the best time, from the point of view that the agenda that Jeremy Corbyn holds to have a VONC. The timing of a VONC is entirely in his control, assuming he is the only one that can call a VONC.
As such if he thinks it suits him best to have a VONC that makes it impossible to stop a No Deal on 31st October, isn't that what he will do?
Corbyn has a lot of control and power right now.
Calling VONC when it suits his agenda Whipping to defeat any proposed GONU if he cannot command the confidence of the house. The timing of VONC, and therefore the fall of BJ, application for extension and timing of an election before or after 31st October
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Ordered - or was ordered.
That’s a good question. Certainly if Kenny’s optimism had continued, it would have precluded the EU from making the border in NI the centrepiece of their strategy.
Kenny accepted there would be some kind of increased level of smuggling. It is perfectly understandable if any actual leader (Kenny had handed over by then) refused to accept that. Not to say that was Varadkar's view but it is understandable.
No, in this case the blame is 100% on the UK's side. The reason for this is very simple: as @edmundintokyo pointed out on the previous thread, if Boris were genuinely trying to agree a deal by playing hardball, he wouldn't have boxed himself in with a deadline which he must know perfectly well is impossible to meet - remember that he has said we'll leave 'do or die' on Macron's October 31st date even if the EU folds and says 'yes, OK, we think we can ditch the backstop but to formalise it we'll have to wait until the new commission is in place.'. That is completely bonkers by any standard.
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
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.
Those who have always pressed for us to be integrated into the EU must also bear their share of responsibility for where we are now. They knew their project was unpopular with the public, but they pressed on regardless. Eventually, the public reacted.
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 stmusement?
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
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.
Those who have always pressed for us to be integrated into the EU must also bear their share of responsibility for where we are now. They knew their project was unpopular with the public, but they pressed on regardless. Eventually, the public reacted.
The project that had been adopted by successive democratically-elected UK governments, you mean? That project?
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 stmusement?
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
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.
Those who have always pressed for us to be integrated into the EU must also bear their share of responsibility for where we are now. They knew their project was unpopular with the public, but they pressed on regardless. Eventually, the public reacted.
The project that had been adopted by successive democratically-elected UK governments, you mean? That project?
Voting Labour in Scotland - a distant memory from history when engaging progressive party leaders Tony Blair and intelligent Gordon Brown scooped up just about every seat. Corbynism has destroyed Labour north of the border - yet another betrayal by the extreme Cult.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
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.
Clearly untrue unless you are suggesting the EU would break its own rules to allow Scotland to join immediately without going through the normal treaty process.
And of course based on your own personal desire to see England broken for having the temerity to wantbyo leave your beloved EU.
I don't want to see England broken. I want to see it playing a leading role in the European Union including joining the Euro.
But you know that will never happen and so have been gloating on the prospect of a broken England. Something you yourself promote just a few lines ago.
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?
Carlotta posted a useful link at 10:10
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly collaboration
Enda Kenny stepped down on June 13th, 2017. Brexit negotiations began on June 19th, 2017.
Mr. Topping, the project that was rejected at the only public consultation ever held on membership?
Turns out the political class being more pro-EU than the general public and reneging on manifesto promises for a referendum on Lisbon didn't help the public like the EU after all. Whoever would've guessed?
Mr. Topping, the project that was rejected at the only public consultation ever held on membership?
Turns out the political class being more pro-EU than the general public and reneging on manifesto promises for a referendum on Lisbon didn't help the public like the EU after all. Whoever would've guessed?
I'm sure it seemed like a cunning plan, to renege on that promise, at the time.
The problem with cunning plans is that they often cause bigger problems down the line.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Except Varadkar has also said Ireland is willing to explore technological solutions. The problem is none have been presented.
There was facial recognition for pigs. It might be a bit of problem when David Davis drives on the N1 but, otherwise, solid idea.
Yep that's fair enough but don't paint it as some great us vs them conspiracy against the voters. Voters are allowed to change their mind. Perhaps they have done so over the past three years how would we find that out I wonder.
Mr. Topping, the project that was rejected at the only public consultation ever held on membership?
Turns out the political class being more pro-EU than the general public and reneging on manifesto promises for a referendum on Lisbon didn't help the public like the EU after all. Whoever would've guessed?
Morris if the public had disliked it so much then they would have voted into government a party which pledged to leave the EU well before now.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
Good point. People were okay with a European Economic Community, but didn't like all the political institutions like the Commission, Parliament and ECJ that came later [checks notes] were there from the beginning.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
Huh? They set out the guidelines, then negotiated for two years with the UK government and with the UK government came to an agreement. How is that screwing up the negotiations? They did indeed produce an agreement between the two parties.
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
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?
Carlotta posted a useful link at 10:10
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly collaboration
Voting Labour in Scotland - a distant memory from history when engaging progressive party leaders Tony Blair and intelligent Gordon Brown scooped up just about every seat. Corbynism has destroyed Labour north of the border - yet another betrayal by the extreme Cult.
Corbyn was just an obstreperous and obscure backbencher in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Labour in Scotland was being fatally damaged by entirely other elements and events.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Also bollocks
They produced an agreement between the parties to the talks.
It was approved by 28 heads of Government (including ours)
That the PM couldn't get parliament to vote for it is not the fault of the EU
Mr. Topping, the project that was rejected at the only public consultation ever held on membership?
Turns out the political class being more pro-EU than the general public and reneging on manifesto promises for a referendum on Lisbon didn't help the public like the EU after all. Whoever would've guessed?
Morris if the public had disliked it so much then they would have voted into government a party which pledged to leave the EU well before now.
I see it as being a bit analogous to the Scottish Labour Party. Right up till 2015, they could say, "well, if the Scots don't like us, they wouldn't keep voting for us", even though they should have seen the warning signs from years previously.
There's always a time lag between something becoming unpopular, and it then feeding through to voting intentions. Shrewd politicians read the runes early, and react accordingly, rather than wait to get swept out.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Ordered - or was ordered.
Was it...George Soros?
Does he have an office in Brussels?
You need to ask who was Brussels taking orders from, as any ful and whacko kno.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Also bollocks
They produced an agreement between the parties to the talks.
It was approved by 28 heads of Government (including ours)
That the PM couldn't get parliament to vote for it is not the fault of the EU
It's the EU's fault that they couldn't cope with the idea that our Parliament had to approve the agreement, and wasn't just a rubber stamping shop. Thus neatly illustrating one of our main criticisms of the EU, that it's an affront to democracy.
Of course May's failure to make clear what Parliament could and couldn't accept is not their fault. Neither is Parliament's inability to accept anything reasonable for various side reasons.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Also bollocks
They produced an agreement between the parties to the talks.
It was approved by 28 heads of Government (including ours)
That the PM couldn't get parliament to vote for it is not the fault of the EU
How long has it been apparent that what their negotiators had come up with wouldn't fly.
History will not give them the pass that you are prepared to hand out.
There are so many imponderables in the next few weeks.
If it is correct that a VONC can only be called by the Leader of the Opposition, then the first question to address is this:
What are the prime objectives of LOTO?
Assumption that he is more Brexity than his party.
He wants a Tory owned Brexit for political advantage. The harder it is the greater his advantage?
The current HOC is unlikely to give JC a majority in a Vote of Confidence, so his chances of assuming the title of PM in this Parliament is limited (although hubris and delusion could blur his judgement on this?). The most probable effect of a successful VONC is an election.
He wants an election, but does he want it before or after Brexit?
When is the best time, from the point of view that the agenda that Jeremy Corbyn holds to have a VONC. The timing of a VONC is entirely in his control, assuming he is the only one that can call a VONC.
As such if he thinks it suits him best to have a VONC that makes it impossible to stop a No Deal on 31st October, isn't that what he will do?
Corbyn has a lot of control and power right now.
Calling VONC when it suits his agenda Whipping to defeat any proposed GONU if he cannot command the confidence of the house. The timing of VONC, and therefore the fall of BJ, application for extension and timing of an election before or after 31st October
He does have a lot of power. And I hope he would get crucified for engineering no deal.
Here is another one. Seems the work was being done in the Irish Revenue dept, that was stopped by Varadkar.
This would be the Stephen Donnelly who told James Brokenshire that "a frictionless border simply wouldn’t work and the border between Ireland and the UK should be the Irish Sea" and said that "any border with Northern Ireland – either physical or electronic – must be avoided"?
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Also bollocks
They produced an agreement between the parties to the talks.
It was approved by 28 heads of Government (including ours)
That the PM couldn't get parliament to vote for it is not the fault of the EU
28 different Gov'ts agree to it, from the left in Portugal through Spain (Who have their own Gibraltar issues), the liberal centre in France, the centre right in Ireland and Germany through to the right in Poland, Hungary and Italy. And then our own absolubte shower of a parliament won't.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
A virtual border using technology could be the solution to maintaining an open flow of people between Northern Ireland and the Republic, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has said. After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Except Varadkar has also said Ireland is willing to explore technological solutions. The problem is none have been presented.
But stopped collaboration on them. (see earlier posts).
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
Voting Labour in Scotland - a distant memory from history when engaging progressive party leaders Tony Blair and intelligent Gordon Brown scooped up just about every seat. Corbynism has destroyed Labour north of the border - yet another betrayal by the extreme Cult.
Corbyn was just an obstreperous and obscure backbencher in 2007, 2011 and 2015. Labour in Scotland was being fatally damaged by entirely other elements and events.
He wasn't the cause, but I think you can certainly accuse him of plunging SLAB even further down the drain. Would Leonard still be in post, for instance, if wasn't for the fact he was needed as a pro-Corbyn vote on the NEC?
misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
Again, not the problem of the EU.
The UK negotiators and May agreed the deal.
They didn't say to the EU, 'BTW I can't get this passed' before they signed it.
It will be if we no deal. Their job was to negotiate a deal that both sides would be happy with and agree to. I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works. That the agreement didn't pass and we leave without no deal suggests they failed in their job.
If Unai Emery has agreed a deal to flog Mesut Ozil for £100m to Accrington Stanley but at the last minute Accrington Stanley pull the plug because they realise it's a shit deal for them then Emery is not some genius because the deal never went through. A few months later Ozil leaves on a free and Emery will be wishing he set a more realistic price where an agreement could have been forged.
If there is a vote of no confidence passed, presumably Johnson would try, probably unsusccesfully, to get a majority in the 14 day cooling off period. To get that her would have to relax his plans. If in the meantime a national unity group is formed and has a majority in the Commons the Queen could then invite them to form government, ignoring the PM who in this situation would not get a majority. If he refuses to go, what next Tanks on Whitehall?.
Mr. Observer, if Varadkar's attempt to prevent any kind of border results in the hardest border possible then might one not venture to assert that perhaps his approach has not been conducive to achieving his aims?
Any sort of border is in breach of the GFA which broadly ended the civil war in Northern Ireland.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works.
I expect they thought given the national imperative facing the UK with no deal that enough might hold their nose and vote it through. That parliament did not is almost beyond belief imo.
We all move in our own bubbles and this distorts our perceptions but my bubble remains focused on the unmitigated disaster that independence would be for Scotland. This is a far, far more important issue for most Scots than Brexit because the consequences would be many times more significant.
This means that even although a significant part of Ruth's 2017 successful coalition is pretty unhappy with Brexit generally and horrified at Boris's apparent drive to a no deal in particular there is also concern about the current strength of the SNP and the possibility of yet more years of constitutional wrangling north of the border doing yet more damage to our business.
In the short term that unhappiness may well tempt electors to the Lib Dems, a solidly Unionist party who also oppose Brexit. Come elections in Scotland, however, whether for Holyrood or Westminster and the independence question will once again dominate proceedings to the almost complete exclusion of the secondary Brexit issue. That means where the Lib Dems have good prospects, such as Fife NE and possibly one of the Edinburgh seats, they will get Unionist support but in most of the country those votes will go Tory. I can't see the Lib Dems regaining any of their former strongholds in the borders for example.
In short Brexit has temporarily weakened Ruth's coalition but those arguing it cannot be put back together again are in my view overstating things. A further complicating factor is the incredible weakness of Scottish Labour which is boosting SNP support with left leaning voters. Lost Labour seats look inevitable at the moment boosting the SNP dominance once again.
David's quite right. In any event it will be the Scottish Parliamentary elections due in 2021 that will determinse Scotland's constituional future - not a snap general election. By 2021 the SNP SNP will have been in power for 14 years, Brexit will have been done and the consequences of the Salmond trial may be reverberating around the Scottish political scene. People will want change at Holyrood.
FWIW I think the Tories will retain six seats at least in Scotland in a snap GE. The three in the Borders plus three in the NE (Moray, Banff & Buchan and Aberdeenshire West). I doubt very much that you will see Nicola in Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Buckie during the campaign!
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
She kept bringing it back to parliament and people kept on switching votes to support it. So May thought she could get it through and now you are saying the EU should have second guessed the British PM and got involved in that process?
And I thought it was we remainers who were accused of wanting too much EU.
Mr. Observer, if Varadkar's attempt to prevent any kind of border results in the hardest border possible then might one not venture to assert that perhaps his approach has not been conducive to achieving his aims?
Any sort of border is in breach of the GFA which broadly ended the civil war in Northern Ireland.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
It will be if we no deal. Their job was to negotiate a deal that both sides would be happy with and agree to.
Both sides in the room were happy and agreed to it
Perhaps both sides misunderstood that the agreement wasn't going to be signed and ratified by the people in that room alone. Both May and Barnier are cretins for putting their feet up and assuming their jobs were done. As someone who prefers the WA, but is not against no deal I'm not going to complain, but in business I'd rather negotiate until the last second to get a mutually beneficial deal done than walk away at the first opportunity because I'd hit a bump in the road.
I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works.
I expect they thought given the national imperative facing the UK with no deal that enough might hold their nose and vote it through. That parliament did not is almost beyond belief imo.
It's one of the oddities of this situation that hard Brexiteers would rather have no Brexit, than a Brexit that's less than perfect, and hard Remainers would rather have a No Deal Brexit than a managed Brexit.
Apropros of how this might end up, my other half's relatives, who are far more remain than me would be utterly, utterly thrilled if we could get rid of Northern Ireland and dump it on the ROI.
A potentially positive outcome, getting rid of the most costly backward and troublesome part of the union. Good riddance I say if NI goes.
I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works.
I expect they thought given the national imperative facing the UK with no deal that enough might hold their nose and vote it through. That parliament did not is almost beyond belief imo.
Just imagine where we'd be were it not for the Grieve Amendment.
If there is a vote of no confidence passed, presumably Johnson would try, probably unsusccesfully, to get a majority in the 14 day cooling off period. To get that her would have to relax his plans. If in the meantime a national unity group is formed and has a majority in the Commons the Queen could then invite them to form government, ignoring the PM who in this situation would not get a majority. If he refuses to go, what next Tanks on Whitehall?.
The PM needs to resign, and recommend a successor who has the confidence of the House. It is this that it has been floated he would refuse to do. The Queen technically can't "invite" anyone off Her own bat. Nor does she dismiss PMs. By the currently existing convention that is...
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
She kept bringing it back to parliament and people kept on switching votes to support it. So May thought she could get it through and now you are saying the EU should have second guessed the British PM and got involved in that process?
And I thought it was we remainers who were accused of wanting too much EU.
That's clearly not what I'm saying. Maybe you're running about 4 or 5 months behind the rest of us but the WA has been dead since Spring, there is no need to second guess that. Just as a spoiler for you the 2019 Cricket World Cup is brilliant.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
What is there to negotiate? The UK government actively wants to leave the EU on 31st October without a deal because it believes this offers it the best chance of winning the next general election.
Apropros of how this might end up, my other half's relatives, who are far more remain than me would be utterly, utterly thrilled if we could get rid of Northern Ireland and dump it on the ROI.
A potentially positive outcome, getting rid of the most costly backward and troublesome part of the union. Good riddance I say if NI goes.
My mother, who is much more leave than me, has come to the same conclusion regarding NI.
I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works.
I expect they thought given the national imperative facing the UK with no deal that enough might hold their nose and vote it through. That parliament did not is almost beyond belief imo.
Just imagine where we'd be were it not for the Grieve Amendment.
I'm pretty sure they know how our parliament works.
I expect they thought given the national imperative facing the UK with no deal that enough might hold their nose and vote it through. That parliament did not is almost beyond belief imo.
Just imagine where we'd be were it not for the Grieve Amendment.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
What is there to negotiate? The UK government actively wants to leave the EU on 31st October without a deal because it believes this offers it the best chance of winning the next general election.
Perhaps the time has now passed but there was a long enough period where May was keen to reopen negotiations and the EU refused. One thing the UK has been consistent with is the willingness to continue talks, the EU may well regret being so obtuse.
Mr. Observer, if Varadkar's attempt to prevent any kind of border results in the hardest border possible then might one not venture to assert that perhaps his approach has not been conducive to achieving his aims?
Any sort of border is in breach of the GFA which broadly ended the civil war in Northern Ireland.
Which bit of the text are you citing?
Now now Carlotta - you are usually quite good at this politics understanding thing.
There never seems to be any acknowledgment in this country that the EU have monumentally screwed up their side of the Brexit negotiations. They have signally failed to produce an agreement between two parties. As required by the Treaty.
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
While they did well to negotiate a withdrawl agreement that worked in their favour I agree they have played the months since very badly. The EU planned to come to an agreement with Britain that was favourable to them, if we leave without a deal then Barnier and Tusk have failed the EU members with their inflexible approach and misreading of UK parliament's willingness to accept May's deal.
How regularly do you think it would have been wise for May to come back to present each clause of the agreement to Parliament? Every month? Every week? Daily?
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
She probably was negotiating in good faith but the withdrawal agreement was rejected how many times? and this was months and months ago. They're acting like flat earthers thinking oh don't worry Britain will cave in and accept the withdrawal agreement, it just isn't going to happen. No deal offers almost zero benefits to the EU, they are complete fools not to go back to the negotiating table given the alternative on offer.
She kept bringing it back to parliament and people kept on switching votes to support it. So May thought she could get it through and now you are saying the EU should have second guessed the British PM and got involved in that process?
And I thought it was we remainers who were accused of wanting too much EU.
That's clearly not what I'm saying. Maybe you're running about 4 or 5 months behind the rest of us but the WA has been dead since Spring, there is no need to second guess that. Just as a spoiler for you the 2019 Cricket World Cup is brilliant.
First off I hate cricket not hate, but it's boring as fuck. And secondly the UK government as I understand it at no point went back to the EU and said: OK let's start again (who knows what the response would have been, I can guess, but we don't know). They, she, just kept putting it back to the HoC. How is that the EU's fault.
Comments
https://twitter.com/BeardedGenius/status/1158652864891432960?s=20
After his first meeting with new British Prime Minister Theresa May, Mr Kenny ruled out the possibility of a hard border in the strongest terms yet.
"I would not agree to a hard border with a whole range of customs posts and neither does the prime minister," he said outside Downing Street.
"There are other ways of dealing with modern technology in terms of checking trade."
Mr Kenny indicated that he was open to exploring models such as those in Canada, whereby vehicles' registration plates are screened automatically as they approach a border.
"Yes, I think these are things that need to be looked at creatively. But we are both agreed very firmly that there will be no return to a hard border as existed previously," he said.
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/kenny-plans-virtual-border-to-preserve-path-to-the-north-34915784.html
I think its pretty evident that Kenny was open to exploring a technological solution and that discussions were taking place - whether there was a formal 'Committee' or not is not clear. What is clear is that Varadkar said 'not our problem' and ordered the work on the Irish side stopped.
Quiet contacts had been taking place between officials north and south of the border.
May be not a "committee" but certainly collaboration
Brexit negotiations began on June 19th, 2017.
There will always be a space for a pro freedom, pro business, internationalist, socially liberal party. I hope mine becomes that. It's not currently either Labour or the Tories.
And of course based on your own personal desire to see England broken for having the temerity to wantbyo leave your beloved EU.
UK won’t stop our trade deal with US in same way. We won’t rise up and block it in same way.
If it is correct that a VONC can only be called by the Leader of the Opposition, then the first question to address is this:
What are the prime objectives of LOTO?
Assumption that he is more Brexity than his party.
He wants a Tory owned Brexit for political advantage. The harder it is the greater his advantage?
The current HOC is unlikely to give JC a majority in a Vote of Confidence, so his chances of assuming the title of PM in this Parliament is limited (although hubris and delusion could blur his judgement on this?). The most probable effect of a successful VONC is an election.
He wants an election, but does he want it before or after Brexit?
When is the best time, from the point of view that the agenda that Jeremy Corbyn holds to have a VONC. The timing of a VONC is entirely in his control, assuming he is the only one that can call a VONC.
As such if he thinks it suits him best to have a VONC that makes it impossible to stop a No Deal on 31st October, isn't that what he will do?
Corbyn has a lot of control and power right now.
Calling VONC when it suits his agenda
Whipping to defeat any proposed GONU if he cannot command the confidence of the house.
The timing of VONC, and therefore the fall of BJ, application for extension and timing of an election before or after 31st October
We will be on our knees begging for any deal
Turns out the political class being more pro-EU than the general public and reneging on manifesto promises for a referendum on Lisbon didn't help the public like the EU after all. Whoever would've guessed?
The problem with cunning plans is that they often cause bigger problems down the line.
To claim otherwise is not true
Saying "nothing can change" when it clearly needs to if they are to meet their obligations is just crass. They deserve a huge amount of opprobrium.
Here is another one. Seems the work was being done in the Irish Revenue dept, that was stopped by Varadkar.
They produced an agreement between the parties to the talks.
It was approved by 28 heads of Government (including ours)
That the PM couldn't get parliament to vote for it is not the fault of the EU
There's always a time lag between something becoming unpopular, and it then feeding through to voting intentions. Shrewd politicians read the runes early, and react accordingly, rather than wait to get swept out.
Of course May's failure to make clear what Parliament could and couldn't accept is not their fault. Neither is Parliament's inability to accept anything reasonable for various side reasons.
History will not give them the pass that you are prepared to hand out.
https://www.fiannafail.ie/border-with-northern-ireland-must-be-avoided-at-all-costs-donnelly/
And then our own absolubte shower of a parliament won't.
May was aboard.
Cabinet was aboard.
They were the passengers the EU had to deal with.
That May then crashed it is not the EU's fault...
The UK negotiators and May agreed the deal.
They didn't say to the EU, 'BTW I can't get this passed' before they signed it.
You can't wish away history
The EU had every right to think that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom was negotiating in good faith for an agreement on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Now you lot of loons are saying that the EU should have known that she was not negotiating in good faith? Who the fuck should they have been negotiating with?
If Unai Emery has agreed a deal to flog Mesut Ozil for £100m to Accrington Stanley but at the last minute Accrington Stanley pull the plug because they realise it's a shit deal for them then Emery is not some genius because the deal never went through. A few months later Ozil leaves on a free and Emery will be wishing he set a more realistic price where an agreement could have been forged.
Even during a general election campaign following losing a VONC Boris will still HMQs Prime Minister.
People really are cluless about how our system works aren't they?
FWIW I think the Tories will retain six seats at least in Scotland in a snap GE. The three in the Borders plus three in the NE (Moray, Banff & Buchan and Aberdeenshire West). I doubt very much that you will see Nicola in Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Buckie during the campaign!
And I thought it was we remainers who were accused of wanting too much EU.
A potentially positive outcome, getting rid of the most costly backward and troublesome part of the union. Good riddance I say if NI goes.
By the currently existing convention that is...
But go on, why should it be only Mr Cummings who does the taunting....
BoZo has refused.
https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1158684482209234944