Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
You make a convincing argument for revoking Article 50. The people of Northern Ireland voted Remain after all. What on earth were we thinking to take away their right to vote in European Elections?
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
I implied nothing about blame. My point is that Gove is either a "dimwit" or dishonest when he feigns surprise/sadness that the EU line is still the same as the one the EU and the UK agreed in April.
What exactly is stopping them from changing their stance?
That's quite irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that no one but a fool or a liar can claim to be surprised by the fact that they are sticking to the conditions everyone agreed to in April.
The deal was rejected again since then. The government has been replaced since then.
The horse is dead. Do you want to keep flogging a dead horse or move on?
That people are incapable of understanding a very simple point expressed in plain English might be frustrating.
But on the other hand, in a sense, it's useful to be constantly reminded how stupid extreme Brexiteers really are.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Not being able to have a vote in the EU is a consequence of Britain’s decision to decide to leave the EU. NI voters are in the same position as all other voters in Britain on this issue. We will have to abide by EU rules but have no say in the making of them. If you value Brexit’s other advantages more, this is a small price to pay; if you don’t you think it silly.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
"taking away fundamental rights by democracy" is literally what happened in the Brexit vote. It's why Remainers struggle to "get over it" as we are so frequently told to do.
Name one fundamental human right that is being taken away by the Brexit vote.
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
I implied nothing about blame. My point is that Gove is either a "dimwit" or dishonest when he feigns surprise/sadness that the EU line is still the same as the one the EU and the UK agreed in April.
What exactly is stopping them from changing their stance?
That's quite irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that no one but a fool or a liar can claim to be surprised by the fact that they are sticking to the conditions everyone agreed to in April.
The deal was rejected again since then. The government has been replaced since then.
The horse is dead. Do you want to keep flogging a dead horse or move on?
That people are incapable of understanding a very simple point expressed in plain English might be frustrating.
But on the other hand, in a sense, it's useful to be constantly reminded how stupid extreme Brexiteers really are.
You really are myopic.
To be fair - he concedes that we're heading to a no deal - so his third eye (or something) is working - why he feels the need to spin for the all-powerful EU I've no idea
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
I implied nothing about blame. My point is that Gove is either a "dimwit" or dishonest when he feigns surprise/sadness that the EU line is still the same as the one the EU and the UK agreed in April.
The EU knew May had to get the deal approved by Parliament before it was ratified, so it was never a done deal. They also know that Parliament rejected it three times. Gove is definitely not a dimwit and, in this case, I don't believe he's being dishonest.
The great news is that No Deal will be no problem. Michael’s changed his mind about that one.
I thought great play was being given to changing of mind demonstrating flexibility. One has to play the hand you have and when that one's finished you play the next one, not the last one - geddit?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
None of us will be able to vote because Britain voted to leave the EU. There is nothing special about NI in this regard.
We are all subject to the laws of other countries without having a vote in their elections as a result of lots of different circumstances. This does not mean that democracy has ended.
The backstop is in good faith - if you can't see what it gives us for free which other countries don't have you need to reread the agreement.
I couldn't care less what it gives us for free if the price is unacceptable. I don't object to what they've given us! I'm happy with the transition.
They could give us the land for free, tell us that instead of us paying them they will start paying us, I still wouldn't support it. This isn't a transaction, as a point of principle if laws are to be democratically determined for your own nation you must get a right to vote for your own laws. No ifs, no ands, no buts. This is a principle I will not back down on no matter what the price, no matter what the benefits, I am a democrat.
The Gove line this afternoon is clearly about the Johnson Government preparing a lorry-load of blame to be dumped all over the EU especially if aspects of leaving without an agreed WA prove sub-optimal to use the vernacular.
Indeed, but the only people gullible enough to buy it are already voting for BoZo.
You think the EU is blameless?
Another delusion proposed by hardcore Brexiteers is that ALL Remainers love the EU, we all don't! The alternative as proposed by Mssrs. Johnson and Farage is considerably worse, to the point of insanity in fact.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
Rob, next you will be telling me you are surprised
April's negotiation was not in good faith. The backstop is not in good faith.
The backstop was in the WA May agreed to back in November 2018. I half wonder if she knew it wouldn't get through the Commons but put it there anyway to frustrate the pro-Brexit brigade.
Part of me also wonders whether even if the Backstop hadn't been included, there would have been an argument over the divorce bill.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
None of us will be able to vote because Britain voted to leave the EU. There is nothing special about NI in this regard.
We are all subject to the laws of other countries without having a vote in their elections as a result of lots of different circumstances. This does not mean that democracy has ended.
It's reasonable to not vote if we are not subject to their laws.
But no we are not subject to the laws of other countries. The laws of this country must be set by the voters of this country, not the voters of another country or group of countries. Name me one area please where anything comparable to this exists.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Except they can't change their minds.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Children don't have the same rights as adults. All law abiding free adult citizens of this country got a vote in July 2016.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Which specific regulations and standards that would be affected by the backstop do you find equivalent to removing General Election voting rights from specific demographics?
Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by MEPs at the European Parliament. Any and all that are meant to be democratically decided by countries in the European Council.
It doesn't matter how big or how small an election is. Telling a community they must abide by the outcome of elections but can't vote in them, while elections continue for other communities is utterly, utterly unacceptable.
Like children in our community, for example? Or non-voting residents of the UK? 29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
Er, what? We should either cease all elections forever or agree to let all children, no matter how young, have a vote?
I'm sure you don't want either of those scenarios, but I'm struggling to come up with a a third option from your wording.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
None of us will be able to vote because Britain voted to leave the EU. There is nothing special about NI in this regard.
We are all subject to the laws of other countries without having a vote in their elections as a result of lots of different circumstances. This does not mean that democracy has ended.
It's reasonable to not vote if we are not subject to their laws.
But no we are not subject to the laws of other countries. The laws of this country must be set by the voters of this country, not the voters of another country or group of countries. Name me one area please where anything comparable to this exists.
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
So, you don’t believe the right to vote for those who make the laws you live under is a fundamental human right. You believe it comes with conditions.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
The truth behind a good poker face only becomes apparent when the hand is over.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
"taking away fundamental rights by democracy" is literally what happened in the Brexit vote. It's why Remainers struggle to "get over it" as we are so frequently told to do.
Name one fundamental human right that is being taken away by the Brexit vote.
I wasn't referring specifically to the UDHR as I am sure you know. I was pointing out that I used to have the right of freedom of movement within the EU and that was being taken away from me and my children. I used to have the absolute right to live in the UK with an EU spouse and that was being taken away from me. And my children These are universal rights that used to apply to the whole territory of the EU and are now being restricted to the UK. That is a diminution of my rights and the rights of my children. So don't expect me to take it lying down.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
So, you don’t believe the right to vote for those who make the laws you live under is a fundamental human right. You believe it comes with conditions.
Pretty standard conditions being you are a free adult in your own country yes. Other than that it is universal.
Children don't have an adults rights, criminals behind bars forfeit them and guests in another country voluntarily forfeit them but may maintain them for their own nation.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
Don’t all revolutions end up like this? They start with some liberal nobles asking the king to be a bit more reasonable, involve them more and not tax so hard and in a few years it ends up with Jacobins beheading people in central Paris and then being murdered in their turn.
It ends with a megalomaniac in charge and fighting all over Europe for two decades.
Quite where we are in this cycle I don’t know. I hope it turns out to be a crap analogy.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Except they can't change their minds.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
So you would support a Northern Ireland referendum on the backstop if it did allow the people of Northern Ireland to walk away from the backstop if they expressed a wish to do so in the future. Good. I do too. We have our compromise. I think the EU might well accept it.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
I do not accept that
It was a good compromise, much much better than where we are now
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
So, you don’t believe the right to vote for those who make the laws you live under is a fundamental human right. You believe it comes with conditions.
Pretty standard conditions being you are a free adult in your own country yes. Other than that it is universal.
Children don't have an adults rights, criminals behind bars forfeit them and guests in another country voluntarily forfeit them but may maintain them for their own nation.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
Don’t all revolutions end up like this? They start with some liberal nobles asking the king to be a bit more reasonable, involve them more and not tax so hard and in a few years it ends up with Jacobins beheading people in central Paris and then being murdered in their turn.
It ends with a megalomaniac in charge and fighting all over Europe for two decades.
Quite where we are in this cycle I don’t know. I hope it turns out to be a crap analogy.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Except they can't change their minds.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
So you would support a Northern Ireland referendum on the backstop if it did allow the people of Northern Ireland to walk away from the backstop if they expressed a wish to do so in the future. Good. I do too. We have our compromise. I think the EU might well accept it.
I have said that before. If the people of NI voluntarily and without coercion choose to enter the backstop, and maintain the right to exit it whenever they choose to do so then yes it would be acceptable.
However I think we're too far gone for that now. It would have been a reasonable compromise six months ago but now I think its best it just goes altogether and we get a new compromise.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
I do not accept that
It was a good compromise, much much better than where we are now
They are clear, if it becomes clear during the 14 day period after VoNC, that another person can command confidence, then the current PM is duty bound to resign.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Complete rubbish.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding (though most Tory MPs would not have voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with free movement of people nor would Labour MPs like Flint had Labour won an election in the transition period it could have kept us in the Single Market if it wanted).
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
you really don't get it do you.
Explain it to me. What outcome are Johnson and Gove seeking to bring about?
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
So, you don’t believe the right to vote for those who make the laws you live under is a fundamental human right. You believe it comes with conditions.
Pretty standard conditions being you are a free adult in your own country yes. Other than that it is universal.
Children don't have an adults rights, criminals behind bars forfeit them and guests in another country voluntarily forfeit them but may maintain them for their own nation.
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
Briskin don't talk mince , The EU are wetting themselves laughing at those idiots, worse than the Keystone Cops, and Gove is a cretinous dimwit.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Complete rubbish.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding.
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
you really don't get it do you.
Explain it to me. What outcome are Johnson and Gove seeking to bring about?
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Complete rubbish.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding.
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Except they can't change their minds.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
So you would support a Northern Ireland referendum on the backstop if it did allow the people of Northern Ireland to walk away from the backstop if they expressed a wish to do so in the future. Good. I do too. We have our compromise. I think the EU might well accept it.
I have said that before. If the people of NI voluntarily and without coercion choose to enter the backstop, and maintain the right to exit it whenever they choose to do so then yes it would be acceptable.
However I think we're too far gone for that now. It would have been a reasonable compromise six months ago but now I think its best it just goes altogether and we get a new compromise.
Why is it too late? To my knowledge it has never been suggested in the negotiations. Why not do it now. It is a very elegant solution that solves the backstop problem and allows for an orderly transition.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Complete rubbish.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding.
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
Victim blaming again.
People that voted to Leave and then voted against the Deal are not the victims of No Deal. They are responsible for it. That applies to the few dozen ERGers and the couple hundred Remainers alike.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Complete rubbish.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding.
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
Victim blaming again.
They're not victims.
We’re all victims in this insanity. And our children.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
Don’t all revolutions end up like this? They start with some liberal nobles asking the king to be a bit more reasonable, involve them more and not tax so hard and in a few years it ends up with Jacobins beheading people in central Paris and then being murdered in their turn.
It ends with a megalomaniac in charge and fighting all over Europe for two decades.
Quite where we are in this cycle I don’t know. I hope it turns out to be a crap analogy.
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
I implied nothing about blame. My point is that Gove is either a "dimwit" or dishonest when he feigns surprise/sadness that the EU line is still the same as the one the EU and the UK agreed in April.
What exactly is stopping them from changing their stance?
That's quite irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that no one but a fool or a liar can claim to be surprised by the fact that they are sticking to the conditions everyone agreed to in April.
I'm surprised. I assumed the EU would act in good faith. Yes, I guess I am a bit of a fool.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
So they shouldn't be subject to the laws the European Parliament passes without taking part in European Parliamentary Elections right?
Why? If they are happy with that, as the voters of Norway and Switzerland are happy with it, why shouldn’t they have it? They can always change their minds.
Except they can't change their minds.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
So you would support a Northern Ireland referendum on the backstop if it did allow the people of Northern Ireland to walk away from the backstop if they expressed a wish to do so in the future. Good. I do too. We have our compromise. I think the EU might well accept it.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
I do not accept that
It was a good compromise, much much better than where we are now
In what way was it a compromise to Remainers?
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
You are subject to the laws of the US if you commit acts which violate any number of laws relating to commerce or computer misuse, even if you never set foot outside your own bedroom. In the UK.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
Firstly US laws apply where US commerce or US websites etc exist. If you violate American laws because you hack an American website etc then yes you have violated their law. However that does not make it British law. You may be extradited however but that will be because you chose to break another nations law not ours - I would advise against hacking American websites.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
It is an agreement freely entered into by a sovereign nation as part of a wider agreement and which will end once a long-term agreement replacing it is entered into by that sovereign nation.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
They are clear, if it becomes clear during the 14 day period after VoNC, that another person can command confidence, then the current PM is duty bound to resign.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
I’m sorry @Big_G_NorthWales but I don’t agree. It was May who legitimised ‘no deal’. It was May who never once reached out to Remainers. It was May who tried to convince everyone that a ‘hard’ Brexit was a compromise.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
I do not accept that
It was a good compromise, much much better than where we are now
In what way was it a compromise to Remainers?
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
Yes, because of the lack of reaching out. It was framed as a triumph of the Brexiteers rather than a compromise to bring the country together. There was never any consolidation, no olive branches.
May has ultimately caused this partisan division and I fail to see how it can be remedied.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
you really don't get it do you.
Explain it to me. What outcome are Johnson and Gove seeking to bring about?
A deal without a backstop.
If he were serious about using a No Deal bluff to achieve that he'd openly say the plan was No Deal but he was willing to talk (and extend) if the EU said the terms of the WA could be changed. By saying October 31st do or die, he demonstrates that he is not serious. Either his plan is something else (like an election), or the plan isn't very good.
The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
Both the Tories and Labour were. It was why many of us voted Lib Dem in response.
Rubbish. In popular culture, outside of Political nerdom, it is Blair and Labour who were to blame. The fact the Conservatives voted for it is just a footnote in the history books.
As I follow the posts each view seems to be unyielding, everyone fighting for their own cause and view point
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
Don’t all revolutions end up like this? They start with some liberal nobles asking the king to be a bit more reasonable, involve them more and not tax so hard and in a few years it ends up with Jacobins beheading people in central Paris and then being murdered in their turn.
It ends with a megalomaniac in charge and fighting all over Europe for two decades.
Quite where we are in this cycle I don’t know. I hope it turns out to be a crap analogy.
Boris as Napoleon? Would be interesting
He has the sexual mores certainly. Doubtful if has any of the other qualities.
Couldn’t we just short circuit the process and send him to St Helena now. They are advertising for an Attorney-General in the Law Society Gazette. It should not take too long for a clever chap like Boris to learn the relevant law.
They are clear, if it becomes clear during the 14 day period after VoNC, that another person can command confidence, then the current PM is duty bound to resign.
The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
A lot of people were misled by the lies emitting from the Labour Govt.
And so it will be written that MPs were misled in thinking no British government would ever take us out of the EU without a deal as that would just be stupid.
Sky Ticker - Gove says he is "deeply saddened that the EU now seems to be refusing to negotiate with the UK"
Is Gove developing dementia or something?
It's less than four months since the government he was a member of agreed as a condition of the extension that there would be no further negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Was he never told? Has he forgotten? Is he just lying?
Spin it all you want
No Deal Brexit Nailed On
I'm not trying to spin anything. I just find it depressing when someone who is sometimes presented as one of the more sensible Tory politicians acts as if he were either extremely stupid or brazenly dishonest.
For what it's worth, I think we're obviously heading for No Deal unless the Commons can stop the insanity, which I am not hopeful about.
You are spinning - your implying that it's our fault the EU won't negotiate and you're calling Gove a dimwit because of the EU's intransigence.
I implied nothing about blame. My point is that Gove is either a "dimwit" or dishonest when he feigns surprise/sadness that the EU line is still the same as the one the EU and the UK agreed in April.
What exactly is stopping them from changing their stance?
Nothing (except presumably their own self-interest). But this does rather highlight certain points, namely
1) The assurances by Leavers that we hold all the cards, that trade deals are easy, that car manufacturers would ride to our aid, that massive unemployment would strike the EU, etc were simply fictional. Leavers are not good at prediction. 2) We currently lack the ability to make the EU do something thru economic force, and future relations must use diplomacy and charm. Although some Leavers would prefer to use military force, and this latter tendency should be resisted. 3) No-deal is a likely outcome and should be prepared for. A sensible government would have spent the two-year period doing that preparation. But we have not had a sensible government for some time.
The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
A lot of people were misled by the lies emitting from the Labour Govt.
And so it will be written that MPs were misled in thinking no British government would ever take us out of the EU without a deal as that would just be stupid.
You have to go back to the lies told by Leave and Remain. A lot of peoples votes were based on false information.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
you really don't get it do you.
Explain it to me. What outcome are Johnson and Gove seeking to bring about?
In absolute detail, who knows. I believe they would like a deal which enables them to claim success (I hope not victory, we should be friendly even though I don't believe the EU has acted in a friendly manner) and for both of them to thrive politically thereafter. That would do me too. I would like a fair deal that has the possibility of bringing the country together at least a little bit.
I'm sure Gove isn't surprised but this is a poker game and you've obviously never played.
With that in mind, how do you read the headlines about the EU coming away from the meeting with David Frost saying that No Deal is Boris Johnson's "central scenario", something he has called a "one in a million chance"?
Not following - the idea in poker is to keep a poker face - you will have heard of that presumably.
Boris Johnson's poker face cracked when he described No Deal as a "one in a million chance".
Why? Does it show he is so confident he will get what he wants because the EU will fold?
It shows that he is not as sanguine about No Deal as he would like to appear.
you really don't get it do you.
Explain it to me. What outcome are Johnson and Gove seeking to bring about?
A deal without a backstop.
If he were serious about using a No Deal bluff to achieve that he'd openly say the plan was No Deal but he was willing to talk (and extend) if the EU said the terms of the WA could be changed. By saying October 31st do or die, he demonstrates that he is not serious. Either his plan is something else (like an election), or the plan isn't very good.
If the plan is an election - I suspect he won't get it.
Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. You cannot get majority support for the backstop in Northern Ireland without sizeable support for it in the Unionist community, especially as a minority within the Nationalist community is also opposed to the backstop.
I don't believe in taking away fundamental human rights by democracy no.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
Yes.
Good. We are getting somewhere.
If Parliament was to pass a law tomorrow saying that blacks Northern Ireland citizens are no longer permitted to vote, I would oppose that. Would you?
NI citizens are permitted to vote - in Westminster and in Stormont (when it is sitting) - elections.
No-one is suggesting that those votes be taken away.
Good they will be subject to Westminster and Stormont laws, so of course they should vote in Westminster and Stormont elections. Would be unreasonable to be otherwise.
Will they be subject to laws passed by the European Parliament?
Will they be able to vote in European Parliament elections?
To be clear: you believe democracy entails those affected by laws having the right to vote for those who make the laws?
I believe democracy entails all free adult citizens of a country getting the right to vote for those who make the laws yes.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
So, you don’t believe the right to vote for those who make the laws you live under is a fundamental human right. You believe it comes with conditions.
Pretty standard conditions being you are a free adult in your own country yes. Other than that it is universal.
Children their own nation.
If a right is conditional it is not fundamental.
No it is fundamental.
Free adult citizens have no conditions upon them.
If something is fundamental it cannot be conditional.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
The GFA has provisions for the dismantling of border posts? Perhaps it happened at the same time, but I don’t see any text in the GFA forbidding customs checks, at the border or otherwise.
Another one who presumably wilfully doesn't understand the history or politics of Northern Ireland (or perhaps anywhere else).
What has that got to do with pointing out factually incorrect statements?
But by all means tell me that it has nothing to do with the GFA. You think you are being clever, clever but you are actually being a dick.
Charming. Just pointing out that there are no such provisions in the text of the agreement as you had claimed. And I think an army observation post is a bit different from a customs border, which is the current point of contention.
Jesus Fucking Christ I am trying to be reasonable here but it's like teaching a haddock how to ride a bicycle.
In the context of the Troubles every seemingly straightforward policing or enforcement action had to have a subsidiary full scale military operation around it. Hence you would get two RUC bobbies walking down the road, thumbs stuck in their tunics, with anything up to 28 soldiers patrolling around them plus helicopters plus other elements just so those two bobbies could walk down the road.
Same with police stations, observations posts, oh fuck it. Forget it. It's not worth the effort. Basically you have to sit on the triangle thing and then reach down with your feet to the pedals oh wait, you don't have feet...
I think a little precision could avoid much over claim misunderstanding.
"Breaches the Belfast Agreement" is untrue.
"Breaches the spirit of the Belfast Agreement is a reasonable point which can be well defended.
Precisely. As a true PB pedant, I simply pointed out a factual error. All I get in return is personal abuse.
Rob, next you will be telling me you are surprised
The Tory party voted for the Iraq War. Who’s blamed for that?
Labour won the general election after the Iraq War broke out if I recall
Yes, on a massive 35.2% of the vote.
FPTP really sucks.
Tory percentage with Comres after No Deal 36% ie almost identical to Labour share after Iraq War, Labour got a majority over 60 in 2005
As said above, we don’t know the consequences of a no deal Brexit so this polling is even less than useless.
It isn't given those who dislike it will probably go LD who led opposition to Brexit not Corbyn Labour dividing the anti Tory opposition, much as those who disliked the Iraq War went LD as they did not want Howard as PM dividing the anti Labour opposition
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
I will repeat this once again - the opposition is supposed to oppose it is not their job to allow the Government to get their policies through Parliament.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
The WDA took us over the line and the PD was a basis for trade talks where compromises could have been agreed, but all too many remainers saw that as a disaster as we would have left and they would have little hope of rejoining in the early future
I'm sorry my friend but this is completely wrong. IF May had been able to take the entire Conservative Party in Parliament with her, it wouldn't have mattered what the Opposition thought. In the end, her agreement could only have passed with Opposition votes.
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
And your post makes my point perfectly.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
I've always liked Ed Balls, but even more so after finding out he's a Herbert Howells devotee. Fascinating "Great Lives" programme just aired on Radio 4: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0007bd2
Comments
Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please find me one that is violated: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Or non-voting residents of the UK?
29% of those living in the UK were denied any vote in July 2016 but must abide by it - was that wrong?
We are all subject to the laws of other countries without having a vote in their elections as a result of lots of different circumstances. This does not mean that democracy has ended.
They could give us the land for free, tell us that instead of us paying them they will start paying us, I still wouldn't support it. This isn't a transaction, as a point of principle if laws are to be democratically determined for your own nation you must get a right to vote for your own laws. No ifs, no ands, no buts. This is a principle I will not back down on no matter what the price, no matter what the benefits, I am a democrat.
Part of me also wonders whether even if the Backstop hadn't been included, there would have been an argument over the divorce bill.
But no we are not subject to the laws of other countries. The laws of this country must be set by the voters of this country, not the voters of another country or group of countries. Name me one area please where anything comparable to this exists.
The voters of Norway and Switzerland can unilaterally exit whenever they want. There is no unilateral exit from the backstop.
I'm sure you don't want either of those scenarios, but I'm struggling to come up with a a third option from your wording.
If you're not an adult, or a guest of the country not a citizen, or a criminal behind bars you don't have the same rights.
You are subject to the laws of other countries if you sell products or services into those countries from the UK without ever setting foot in those countries.
In both cases, you are subject to laws without having any right to vote for the legislatures which imposed those laws.
It is time TM was recognised as the sane one achieving a deal that would have seen us leave and with good relationship with the EU
It is to the discredit of both ultra leavers and ultra remainers that their failure to compromise has created this crisis.
One last one though-
On the last thread PT was saying that the EU held A-K
Apparently there's a nickname for A-K - Anna Kornekova - Looks good; but rarely wins.
If we had agreed to keep free movement of people we’d have left the EU already.
Similarly if you trade with another nation then you are voluntarily entering into arrangements where the goods, services, conditions etc of what is setting foot in those countries is affected. That doesn't make it British law and it is your choice to freely enter that trade.
The backstop is not comparable to either.
Children don't have an adults rights, criminals behind bars forfeit them and guests in another country voluntarily forfeit them but may maintain them for their own nation.
It ends with a megalomaniac in charge and fighting all over Europe for two decades.
Quite where we are in this cycle I don’t know. I hope it turns out to be a crap analogy.
It was a good compromise, much much better than where we are now
However I think we're too far gone for that now. It would have been a reasonable compromise six months ago but now I think its best it just goes altogether and we get a new compromise.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs committee.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/1813/1813.pdf
They are clear, if it becomes clear during the 14 day period after VoNC, that another person can command confidence, then the current PM is duty bound to resign.
The Withdrawal Agreement simply dealt with the 3 requirements of the exit bill, citizens' rights and the Irish border. The future relationship, whether staying in the Single Market and Customs Union or a Canada style FTA etc could have been negotiated in the transition period, the Political Declaration was not binding (though most Tory MPs would not have voted for the Withdrawal Agreement with free movement of people nor would Labour MPs like Flint had Labour won an election in the transition period it could have kept us in the Single Market if it wanted).
MPs who voted against the Withdrawal Agreement and do not want No Deal have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact No Deal is now almost inevitable
Free adult citizens have no conditions upon them.
The objections to the backstop - and indeed to the WA in general (and I am not just referring to you) - seem to be to the very idea of entering into any sort of agreement at all with the EU. It is most odd. I really don’t understand it. The backstop is a consequence of May’s red lines. Change those and the need for the backstop falls away.
Instead the British government’s position seems to be to keep the red lines, ask the other side to allow us to ignore the consequences of the choices we have made and, in addition, make a red line of a date imposed on us by the French.
Most bizarre.
Anyway I have to be off.
Bye.
May has ultimately caused this partisan division and I fail to see how it can be remedied.
Couldn’t we just short circuit the process and send him to St Helena now. They are advertising for an Attorney-General in the Law Society Gazette. It should not take too long for a clever chap like Boris to learn the relevant law.
1) The assurances by Leavers that we hold all the cards, that trade deals are easy, that car manufacturers would ride to our aid, that massive unemployment would strike the EU, etc were simply fictional. Leavers are not good at prediction.
2) We currently lack the ability to make the EU do something thru economic force, and future relations must use diplomacy and charm. Although some Leavers would prefer to use military force, and this latter tendency should be resisted.
3) No-deal is a likely outcome and should be prepared for. A sensible government would have spent the two-year period doing that preparation. But we have not had a sensible government for some time.
https://twitter.com/tianran/status/1157199736232927232?s=20
FPTP really sucks.
Boris "wouldn't countenance" a GNU?
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1158767410909986821
BUT, and this is the key bit, the 585 pages of legalese, which were, I believe, meant to confuse enough people into believing it was a good Deal and should be passed, ended up antagonising everyone who couldn't see their personal vision of LEAVE within it. May succeeded only in uniting the forces against her.
Labour would support a WA but not this one and it's not the one a Corbyn Government would negotiate so why should they vote for a Deal they don't like simply to avoid a No Deal which gives them, I would contend, more than a chance of getting the keys to No.10.
The story is one of the disunity within your Party and the inability of your party's leaders to get past that and reach out to other groups and parties. Blaming "remainers" is looking at the wrong target.
This is all a mistake of the ERG's making. Granted at the moment they have via Boris inherited the mess but I suspect that won't be the case for long.
It is all the conservatives fault and nothing to do with opposition parties when plainly Corbyn has only been interested in promoting discontent
We all need to concede mps across the HOC have collectively failed
https://twitter.com/edballs/status/1158726624403214336