Not sure many such MPs would regard a return to Troubles as being their responsibility, or care if they did. As a point of information however, how many constituencies are there where the local MP's supporters would 'hate Ken Clarke with a passion'? How many such supporters in each?
I don't know anyone who hates Ken with a passion, or indeed at all. There are two problems about his doing it: (1) he's a Tory, and many Labour Leaver MPs are in seats where voting for any Tory is a step too far (2) he doesn't want Corbyn's brief interregnum (delay and election) but actually to solve Brexit, which could mean years of government.
I think one can reasonably expect MPs and parties not to insist on using stopping No Deal as a means of party advantage, which is why I oppose both Labour "only one way" insistence and LibDem and rebel Tory "anything but you" insistence. Either we think No Deal is a disaster or we don't - if it we do, we will all need to swallow stuff to stop it. But we need to avoid pretending to find a perfect solution which doesn't work but enables us to reject all others that might, and I'm afraid Clarke's plan is one that wouldn't work. Hermon plus early election might.
I think the problem for the Liberal Democrats is less swallowing Corbyn to stop 'No Deal' than the very valid concern that they might end up swallowing Corbyn AND failing to stop no deal. Which after all is not only not entirely within his gift but is not something he seems particularly concerned about.
They actually mainly voted Leave to gain greater control of immigration and sovereignty, not to become a superpower again and there are over 190 countries in the world the vast majority of which are not the US or China or in the EU
There were things we could have done with immigration, but didn't.On the other point, are you thinking of the likes of Tuvalu and Papua New Guinea?
We could not replace free movement from the EU with a points system as Boris is doing now
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Down have been there for centuries and should not be forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
On BBC2 last night at 9pm there was a programme on the murder of Mountbatte and family and friends on a boat and the murder of 18 British paramilitaries in Northern Ireland on the same day in one of the costliest days of the troubles and an emphasis on the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, including when the Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
Its also worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of Directives from the EU in recent decades have been framework directives. These set minimum standards but allow EU member states to have additional, higher standards provided that these are not imposed in a discriminatory way. The result is that even within the EU SM there are different regulations in different countries. How long is it going to be before the UK or NI move outwith that margin of appreciation? In theory it could be forever.
It is likely to be forever, not least because the rules and regulations are sensible and well drafted. At least they were when we contributed to writing them.
Brexit really is a solution searching for a problem.
Brexit is about us stepping out of the political structures of the EU, about not contributing to the EU budget, about not being subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the CJE, about having control of our borders and the right to determine who we want to live here. I have always found it much more difficult to get wound up about dozens of pages of regulations about how my kettle works (although the ridiculous power restrictions imposed on domestic appliances are a mild annoyance as is the inability to buy a decent light bulb).
I tend to agree that our regulations are likely to mimic/copy EU regulations for the foreseeable future. In some restricted areas, such as financial services, the opposite is likely to be true with the EU copying what we do. If that is so leaving really ought to be a lot easier than some are seeking to make it.
Treat yourself to Philips Hue bulbs. You'll never look back. Cheap when amortised over their lifetime, seamless implementation of security lights, auto wake-up/sleep and most importantly disco-enabled.
The regs around kettles aren't what's important here. It's how we might choose to diverge in the future around things like the implementation of autonomous vehicles. Take a look at the online debates from EU-based Tesla owners (Tesla considered by most informed observers as the market leader in autonomous driving tech). The EU regulation is essentially less trusting than in North America, so that if the car wishes to change lanes but does not complete this within 5 due to a lack of traffic gaps, the lane change is automatically cancelled. This makes the driver assist function not only inferior to the US version but potentially also more dangerous.
Perhaps this new rule is due to a well meaning but ill informed Brussels technocrat. Perhaps it's a rule that has been lobbied for by German auto. Either way, this is exactly the sort of increasingly material regulatory interference that Brexit will allow divergence from, should as a country we so wish.
This is why Sylvia Hermon is the person to lead the GoNAfaE.
Say you're a Labour MP in a heavily leave-voting constituency. You're opposed to No Deal but you support Brexit, or want your constituents to think you do.
Jeremy Corbyn has been voted down or not voted on because he obviously didn't have the numbers. Obviously you won't back Ken Clarke or some other Tory grandee who many of your constituents hate with a passion, or a LibDem who your members hate with an even greater passion. Then Sylvia Hermon comes up for a vote. She tells her story about how she joined the UUP after seeing how they put aside partisan differences and compromised for peace, and also mentions that left them and won as an independent after they hooked up with the Tories. She goes on telly and makes a heartfelt appeal to stop No Deal and protect the peace.
Imagine you vote her down and the Troubles kick off again. Do you want that to be *your* responsibility?
There would be much worse choices.
Given her stated views on Jeremy Corbyn, he would have to show a lot more magnanimity than he has publicly displayed to date.
Be quite a move if she did though. 'JC may be a shit, but No Deal is a shitfest. I'll take the gig.'
In order of preference I'd have thought that Jeremy Corbyn goes:
1) Jeremy Corbyn
2) Some friendly and unthreatening Labour grandee
3=) Ian Blackford 3=) Liz Saville-Roberts
5) Caroline Lucas
6) Anyone else.
I'm not sure he gets beyond 1 but I'm pretty sure he doesn't get as far as 6.
This is why Sylvia Hermon is the person to lead the GoNAfaE.
Say you're a Labour MP in a heavily leave-voting constituency. You're opposed to No Deal but you support Brexit, or want your constituents to think you do.
Jeremy Corbyn has been voted down or not voted on because he obviously didn't have the numbers. Obviously you won't back Ken Clarke or some other Tory grandee who many of your constituents hate with a passion, or a LibDem who your members hate with an even greater passion. Then Sylvia Hermon comes up for a vote. She tells her story about how she joined the UUP after seeing how they put aside partisan differences and compromised for peace, and also mentions that left them and won as an independent after they hooked up with the Tories. She goes on telly and makes a heartfelt appeal to stop No Deal and protect the peace.
Imagine you vote her down and the Troubles kick off again. Do you want that to be *your* responsibility?
There would be much worse choices.
Given her stated views on Jeremy Corbyn, he would have to show a lot more magnanimity than he has publicly displayed to date.
Anyway, I can lighten the tone a little this morning with some small cricket news that will cheer England supporters.
It seems the SA and Essex spin bowler, Simon Harmer, will be eligible to play for England next year. On his form for the past three seasons, he would be a shoo-in. As a right arm finger spinner, he's just what England need, and since he's a pretty decent bat too he would make it easier for them to play two spinners if they wish.
A reason to be cheerful this morning!
South African you say? How many of Boris's planned immigration points will he need?
The EU and Irish position is disingenuous. The Withdrawal Agreement has failed to pass the Commons three times. Whilst the PM is responsible for trying to come up with an alternative, the refusal of the EU to countenance any change whilst claiming to be always ready to talk is plain lunacy.
There are plenty of options the EU would accept (EFTA, SU+CM) but the British establishment has managed to narrow its range of options, through a combination of hubris and stupidity, to one scenario that that EU will never accept (WA - BS).
I would have thought SU+CM would be best at this point as it is almost of all of the economic benefits of membership with none of the "political crap" which they profess to despise.
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
And I’d like to be filthy rich and not do another day’s work in my life but those aren’t compatible either.
Anyway, I can lighten the tone a little this morning with some small cricket news that will cheer England supporters.
It seems the SA and Essex spin bowler, Simon Harmer, will be eligible to play for England next year. On his form for the past three seasons, he would be a shoo-in. As a right arm finger spinner, he's just what England need, and since he's a pretty decent bat too he would make it easier for them to play two spinners if they wish.
A reason to be cheerful this morning!
Is it? Why doesn't he want to play for South Africa? Don't they need a decent spinner? I appreciate that people - especially cricketers - are likely to have multiple options, but we really don't want cricketers choosing allegiance because of money, which is what I fear is happening.
Australians and Americans are proud that sportsmen and women choose to represent Australia or the USA. Conversely many English people criticise players who choose to represent England. "Greg Rusedski he's not a Brit he's Canadian!" The list is long and includes many English cricket captains.
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Down have been there for centuries and should not be forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
On BBC2 last night at 9pm there was a programme on the murder of Mountbatte and family and friends on a boat and the murder of 18 British paramilitaries in Northern Ireland on the same day in one of the costliest days of the troubles and an emphasis on the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, including when the Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
That's a dangerous argument and can be twisted either way. For example, imagine saying in 1922 'the Catholic Irish majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone has been there for centuries and should not be forced into the United Kingdom against their will.' Yet that's what happened, with the Boundary Commission more or less a sop to delay opposition.
To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
This is why Sylvia Hermon is the person to lead the GoNAfaE.
Say you're a Labour MP in a heavily leave-voting constituency. You're opposed to No Deal but you support Brexit, or want your constituents to think you do.
Jeremy Corbyn has been voted down or not voted on because he obviously didn't have the numbers. Obviously you won't back Ken Clarke or some other Tory grandee who many of your constituents hate with a passion, or a LibDem who your members hate with an even greater passion. Then Sylvia Hermon comes up for a vote. She tells her story about how she joined the UUP after seeing how they put aside partisan differences and compromised for peace, and also mentions that left them and won as an independent after they hooked up with the Tories. She goes on telly and makes a heartfelt appeal to stop No Deal and protect the peace.
Imagine you vote her down and the Troubles kick off again. Do you want that to be *your* responsibility?
She certainly has the advantage that no one is going to suspect her of using the GoNU as a means of taking over the country.
But I still think the problem is Brexit-leaning - and perhaps even No Deal leaning - Labour MPs. Will they support a GoNU not led by a Labour MP?
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
Not sure many such MPs would regard a return to Troubles as being their responsibility, or care if they did. As a point of information however, how many constituencies are there where the local MP's supporters would 'hate Ken Clarke with a passion'? How many such supporters in each?
I don't know anyone who hates Ken with a passion, or indeed at all. There are two problems about his doing it: (1) he's a Tory, and many Labour Leaver MPs are in seats where voting for any Tory is a step too far (2) he doesn't want Corbyn's brief interregnum (delay and election) but actually to solve Brexit, which could mean years of government.
I think one can reasonably expect MPs and parties not to insist on using stopping No Deal as a means of party advantage, which is why I oppose both Labour "only one way" insistence and LibDem and rebel Tory "anything but you" insistence. Either we think No Deal is a disaster or we don't - if it we do, we will all need to swallow stuff to stop it. But we need to avoid pretending to find a perfect solution which doesn't work but enables us to reject all others that might, and I'm afraid Clarke's plan is one that wouldn't work. Hermon plus early election might.
Thanks Nick. Very helpful.
I'm a big Ken fan but if it doesn't work, I just have to accept that. I know less about Lady H but she must be formidable. I am sure there are downsides to her appointment, but as Alastair Meekes regularly points out 'there are no good options from here'. If Lady Hermon is one of the less bad ones, we should take it.
Not sure many such MPs would regard a return to Troubles as being their responsibility, or care if they did. As a point of information however, how many constituencies are there where the local MP's supporters would 'hate Ken Clarke with a passion'? How many such supporters in each?
I don't know anyone who hates Ken with a passion, or indeed at all. There are two problems about his doing it: (1) he's a Tory, and many Labour Leaver MPs are in seats where voting for any Tory is a step too far (2) he doesn't want Corbyn's brief interregnum (delay and election) but actually to solve Brexit, which could mean years of government.
I think one can reasonably expect MPs and parties not to insist on using stopping No Deal as a means of party advantage, which is why I oppose both Labour "only one way" insistence and LibDem and rebel Tory "anything but you" insistence. Either we think No Deal is a disaster or we don't - if it we do, we will all need to swallow stuff to stop it. But we need to avoid pretending to find a perfect solution which doesn't work but enables us to reject all others that might, and I'm afraid Clarke's plan is one that wouldn't work. Hermon plus early election might.
If MPs thought No Deal was a disaster, they had a means to prevent it.
Three times.
But they thought it wasn't so much of a disaster that they had to put aside party political advantage. Their cries of despair sound pretty phoney to me.
It was certainly never spelled out to us, back in 1998, that it would hugely complicate the process of leaving the EU. This seems rather like an insurance company suddenly whipping out the small print, when you make a claim.
I'm betting you took no more than a passing interest in the Good Friday Agreement at the time. Anyone with an interest in EU politics (pro or anti) or an interest in Irish politics would have realised the implication, but the handful of "Leave Campaigners" were keeping their heads well under the parapet in 1998.
Why did RoI join the EEC on the same day as the UK? To avoid the problems we have been discussing for 3 years. Any treaty which brought NI and RoI politically closer was very obviously going to "complicate the process of the EU".
You bet wrong.
Then either you did realise that the GFA "would hugely complicate the process of leaving the EU", or you were very blinkered.
She certainly has the advantage that no one is going to suspect her of using the GoNU as a means of taking over the country.
But I still think the problem is Brexit-leaning - and perhaps even No Deal leaning - Labour MPs. Will they support a GoNU not led by a Labour MP?
I agree. Or rather, if you go with Corbyn you need to optimize for how in holy hell you get Tories to jump, but with anyone else the problem is Labour leavers.
However, you also have to survive a Corbyn veto. What the Corbyn people seem to fear more than anything is losing control of thr Labour Party. If you elevate anyone other than Corbyn he has to worry that they'll run off with the ball, either taking the actual leadership from him or becoming the de-facto leader of Labour MPs and leaving him marginalized.
So I reckon the sweet spot is non-Labour, but also not anyone from a party that's competing with Labour.
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
We still don't know how Ireland/EU will deal with border issues in the event of No Deal. Isn't clarity on this becoming urgent?
That's clearly true. This is not a proposal. It is merely an enumeration of the aspects of the current proposal that Boris Johnson finds politically unacceptable and a request to replace it with "something else". "Something else" is not specified. So the British government currently does not have a proposal, reasonable or unreasonable, for the EU to consider even if it were so minded.
The last paragraph is why the backstop is not the solution people imagine it is. While the backstop may keep the heirs to the IRA happy, why would it keep the heirs to the UVF happy? The shoe will be on the other foot but all the problems that existed in the Troubles would exist once more under the backstop but with the unionists taking on the role of the nationalists and vice-versa.
The solution is to drop the undemocratic backstop and for both parties to compromise which was the solution that brought about the GFA in the first place.
The EU trying to subjugate unionists and condescendingly saying "we're more powerful so do as we say" is no better to Brits doing that. If we wish to avoid future violence then treating all communities with respect is required and the backstop is absolutely hated by one community.
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
We still don't know how Ireland/EU will deal with border issues in the event of No Deal. Isn't clarity on this becoming urgent?
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
The GFA doesn't make it impossible to leave the EU. It DOES, though, make it impossible to leave the Single Market.
The Tories need to drop the absolutism of their red lines on ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Until they do, the GFA remains incompatible with the Tory commitment to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.
Which of course was always intended to be purely advisory.
The solution is to drop the undemocratic backstop /blockquote>
Tory ministers get paid to repeat this idiotic lie. Whats your excuse?
The Good Friday Agreement - passed by both countries by BINDING referenda - is not undemocratic. The Backstop preserves the GFA. To continue to parrot "undemocratic" baout something democratic demonstrates the kind of small-minded stupidity this country is increasingly good at.
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
The GFA doesn't make it impossible to leave the EU. It DOES, though, make it impossible to leave the Single Market.
The Tories need to drop the absolutism of their red lines on ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Until they do, the GFA remains incompatible with the Tory commitment to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.
Which of course was always intended to be purely advisory.
The last paragraph is why the backstop is not the solution people imagine it is. While the backstop may keep the heirs to the IRA happy, why would it keep the heirs to the UVF happy? The shoe will be on the other foot but all the problems that existed in the Troubles would exist once more under the backstop but with the unionists taking on the role of the nationalists and vice-versa.
The solution is to drop the undemocratic backstop and for both parties to compromise which was the solution that brought about the GFA in the first place.
The EU trying to subjugate unionists and condescendingly saying "we're more powerful so do as we say" is no better to Brits doing that. If we wish to avoid future violence then treating all communities with respect is required and the backstop is absolutely hated by one community.
The loyalist paramilitaries have been banging their heads at Varadkar's approach, but he ploughs on regardless.
The last paragraph is why the backstop is not the solution people imagine it is. While the backstop may keep the heirs to the IRA happy, why would it keep the heirs to the UVF happy? The shoe will be on the other foot but all the problems that existed in the Troubles would exist once more under the backstop but with the unionists taking on the role of the nationalists and vice-versa.
The solution is to drop the undemocratic backstop and for both parties to compromise which was the solution that brought about the GFA in the first place.
The EU trying to subjugate unionists and condescendingly saying "we're more powerful so do as we say" is no better to Brits doing that. If we wish to avoid future violence then treating all communities with respect is required and the backstop is absolutely hated by one community.
Which is to ignore the fact that it was being in the EU which made the GFA possible.
That's clearly true. This is not a proposal. It is merely an enumeration of the aspects of the current proposal that Boris Johnson finds politically unacceptable and a request to replace it with "something else". "Something else" is not specified. So the British government currently does not have a proposal, reasonable or unreasonable, for the EU to consider even if it were so minded.
And Boris needs to hide those facts and make the EU look responsible for the mess.
Treat yourself to Philips Hue bulbs. You'll never look back. Cheap when amortised over their lifetime, seamless implementation of security lights, auto wake-up/sleep and most importantly disco-enabled.
Absolutely. We bought a starter pack bundled with a Google Home mini on Prime Day. And then another pair of bulbs. With more about to be ordered. Its a genuinely brilliant system
The principle of consent is what can solve this issue. Ie a NI referendum on the backstop.
Unless there is something behind the scenes (DUP opposition?) or no way to prevent idiots in Parliament amending the legislation (eg to change the NI referendum to a U.K. wide Remain vs Revoke referendum) then why has it not been proposed?
It’s been more than proposed - we’ve been assured repeatedly in this very forum that it is imminent.
As far as I’ve seen only on this forum though.
Has anyone with any influence actually proposed it in the real world?
Surely an extension would be required...
Pass the WA and Brexit happens but you go into a 6 month “implementation” period to get the legislation in place before you start the “transition”. That’s not an extension 😆
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
+1 - HYUFD posted post after post saying that a referendum in Northern Ireland was going to be called and that said referendum would solve everything.
I suspect he is right - there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland in 2020/21 - but the poll is called a Border Poll and will result in the unification of Ireland
Anyway, I can lighten the tone a little this morning with some small cricket news that will cheer England supporters.
It seems the SA and Essex spin bowler, Simon Harmer, will be eligible to play for England next year. On his form for the past three seasons, he would be a shoo-in. As a right arm finger spinner, he's just what England need, and since he's a pretty decent bat too he would make it easier for them to play two spinners if they wish.
A reason to be cheerful this morning!
Is it? Why doesn't he want to play for South Africa? Don't they need a decent spinner? I appreciate that people - especially cricketers - are likely to have multiple options, but we really don't want cricketers choosing allegiance because of money, which is what I fear is happening.
Australians and Americans are proud that sportsmen and women choose to represent Australia or the USA. Conversely many English people criticise players who choose to represent England. "Greg Rusedski he's not a Brit he's Canadian!" The list is long and includes many English cricket captains.
He played five Test for SA, but it was made clear to Harmer a few years back that he was unlikely to be picked again; the Selectors preferred Harris, but the contentious quota system was also a factor. This was a big factor in him signing for Essex and trying to qualify for England.
It's difficult to see why anybody would have a problem with that.
Anyway, I can lighten the tone a little this morning with some small cricket news that will cheer England supporters.
It seems the SA and Essex spin bowler, Simon Harmer, will be eligible to play for England next year. On his form for the past three seasons, he would be a shoo-in. As a right arm finger spinner, he's just what England need, and since he's a pretty decent bat too he would make it easier for them to play two spinners if they wish.
A reason to be cheerful this morning!
South African you say? How many of Boris's planned immigration points will he need?
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
The GFA doesn't make it impossible to leave the EU. It DOES, though, make it impossible to leave the Single Market.
The Tories need to drop the absolutism of their red lines on ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Until they do, the GFA remains incompatible with the Tory commitment to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.
Which of course was always intended to be purely advisory.
But... ‘sovereignty’.
Taking back control actually means being entirely dependent on the goodwill of others. The UK being free actually means less freedom for UK citizens. That is Brexit.
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Down have been there for centuries and should not be forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
On BBC2 last night at 9pm there was a programme on the murder of Mountbatte and family and friends on a boat and the murder of 18 British paramilitaries in Northern Ireland on the same day in one of the costliest days of the troubles and an emphasis on the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, including when the Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
That's a dangerous argument and can be twisted either way. For example, imagine saying in 1922 'the Catholic Irish majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone has been there for centuries and should not be forced into the United Kingdom against their will.' Yet that's what happened, with the Boundary Commission more or less a sop to delay opposition.
To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
Fermanagah and Tyrone should never have been part of Northern Ireland in the first place, I do not disagree on that and would happily let it join the Republic tomorrow but that does not change the position of Antrim and Down.
Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
+1 - HYUFD posted post after post saying that a referendum in Northern Ireland was going to be called and that said referendum would solve everything.
I suspect he is right - there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland in 2020/21 - but the poll is called a Border Poll and will result in the unification of Ireland
There won't as a Boris Johnson Government will never call a border poll and unless Stormont is restored and there is a Sinn Fein First Minister there can be no claim to one either
She certainly has the advantage that no one is going to suspect her of using the GoNU as a means of taking over the country.
But I still think the problem is Brexit-leaning - and perhaps even No Deal leaning - Labour MPs. Will they support a GoNU not led by a Labour MP?
I agree. Or rather, if you go with Corbyn you need to optimize for how in holy hell you get Tories to jump, but with anyone else the problem is Labour leavers.
However, you also have to survive a Corbyn veto. What the Corbyn people seem to fear more than anything is losing control of thr Labour Party. If you elevate anyone other than Corbyn he has to worry that they'll run off with the ball, either taking the actual leadership from him or becoming the de-facto leader of Labour MPs and leaving him marginalized.
So I reckon the sweet spot is non-Labour, but also not anyone from a party that's competing with Labour.
I think that's roughly right. As a Labour partisan and Corbyn supporter, I'd be up for a solution in the national interest that doesn't give us an advantage, but I'd rather it didn't actually screw us. So I could live with Hermon to stop No Deal with an election soon afterwards.
The fury that it would engender in the DUP would be a bonus.
Quite. And all concerned have been quite prepared to tolerate VAT and duty smuggling across these two different fiscal areas for the past 21 years, as a messy compromise in the name of keeping the peace. Notwithstanding that the criminals profiteering from this are likely highly correlated with the criminals that say they’d murder anyone who tried to perform checks at the border.
So what’s the big deal in also tolerating some further low grade smuggling that arbitrages tariff differentials (slight as they will likely be)? Most of the value will be policed by trusted trader / big firm audits and self declarations form SMEs (the owners of which are already trusted to be law abiding when making their income tax self declarations).
Go on, I dare China (perennial trade law breaker) or the US (committed to peace in Ireland) to sue the UK and EU through the WTO tribunal for improperly policing tariff schedules.
Final component is a common agri area for the island, ideally with Belfast govt as the second key stakeholder but in its absence London.
We’ve entered Wonderland in this debate. It’s really not as intractable a problem as is made out when you look at it with a problem solving hat on rather than with some other agenda.
'Final component is a common agri area for the island, ideally with Belfast govt as the second key stakeholder but in its absence London. '
Isn't that the nub of the problem? One side say that NI should have EU standards, the other that it need not have. However both sides say that 'it's a matter of principle'.
Why shouldn’t NI comply with both sets of regulations? It’s more expensive but in my industry people frequently comply with FDA/EMA/SFDA and other agency regulations in a single site.
That's fine. There still needs to be a border in the Irish Sea if there's to be a soft land border AND mainland GB doesn't conform to EU regs
Nah you just need a certificate of origin
The bulk of Ag trading is done by very few companies anyway
The certificate of origin still needs to be checked. If it's not done on the Irish land border it will need to be at the Irish Sea. Border checks aren't needed for system-bound legitimate trading. They are there for the illegitimate and unsystematised trading
Self declaration and spot checks. It’s notvthat easy to move a lot of agricultural product into NI from GB without someone spotting it.
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
+1 - HYUFD posted post after post saying that a referendum in Northern Ireland was going to be called and that said referendum would solve everything.
I suspect he is right - there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland in 2020/21 - but the poll is called a Border Poll and will result in the unification of Ireland
I love the way people just bash off any old crap on NI without having any understanding of the place or even bothering to check the large body of opniion tracking that's available.
Most of the rubbish posted on NI is far from the mark.
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
We still don't know how Ireland/EU will deal with border issues in the event of No Deal. Isn't clarity on this becoming urgent?
Point taken, but it was not at the heart of the campaign that constitutionally it is impossible to leave.
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
Unless and until Boris Johnson wins a majority he could not even put May's Withdrawal Agreement before the Commons again even if he wanted to as it would fail, referendum or not in NI, as is the only majority in the Commons is for the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop ie the Brady amendment as Boris is pursuing
The aim with Northern Ireland must be to find a technical solution for the border that avoids both a hard border with the Republic of Ireland angering Nationalists and a hard border in the Irish sea angering Unionists
And I’d like to be filthy rich and not do another day’s work in my life but those aren’t compatible either.
Agree. In an ideal world we should be going into agreements with countries that breakdown barriers to trade and free movement and maintain high standards of safety for products sold. I would have thought that was the aim of a Conservative, so as to make the lives of people better and more free. That is exactly what the EU does. We are now creating barriers to that.
Right wing English nationalists do not care about Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. Brexit is being driven by right wing English nationalists.
Wales voted Leave as did Antrim
So what? Brexit is being driven by right wing English nationalists.
The DUP backed Brexit and are the largest party in Northern Ireland and the Brexit Party won most MEPs in Wales in the European Parliament elections in May
Treat yourself to Philips Hue bulbs. You'll never look back. Cheap when amortised over their lifetime, seamless implementation of security lights, auto wake-up/sleep and most importantly disco-enabled.
Absolutely. We bought a starter pack bundled with a Google Home mini on Prime Day. And then another pair of bulbs. With more about to be ordered. Its a genuinely brilliant system
As someone who loves tech, who worked in tech, and whose wife works in cutting-edge tech, I'm incredibly negative on this sort of sh*te. I just cannot see why anyone in their right minds - yet alone anyone who is remotely interested in privacy - would use Google Home / Amazon Echo etc.
As for smart lightbulbs - no thanks. Too much to go wrong in a multitude of ways. Unless, of course, they use tech Mrs J has worked on.
TMs deal is the best around. Any deal will have to be close to it. Labour's intense opposition to it is not something they have been able to explain very clearly.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
The GFA doesn't make it impossible to leave the EU. It DOES, though, make it impossible to leave the Single Market.
The Tories need to drop the absolutism of their red lines on ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Until they do, the GFA remains incompatible with the Tory commitment to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.
Which of course was always intended to be purely advisory.
This solution would suit me, but apparently not the House of Commons. No doubt because the FoM issue was important for both sides in the campaign.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You blame Varadkar because you cannot accept that the Northern Ireland border has turned out to be the issue Brexit backers always claimed it never would be.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
What they have not got from the British government is a proposal. It is at best a sketch of what might constitute a proposal, coupled with a list of objections to the current deal on the table.
Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Down have been there for centuries and should not be forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
On BBC2 last night at 9pm there was a programme on the murder of Mountbatte and family and friends on a boat and the murder of 18 British paramilitaries in Northern Ireland on the same day in one of the costliest days of the troubles and an emphasis on the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, including when the Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
That's a dangerous argument and can be twisted either way. For example, imagine saying in 1922 'the Catholic Irish majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone has been there for centuries and should not be forced into the United Kingdom against their will.' Yet that's what happened, with the Boundary Commission more or less a sop to delay opposition.
To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
Fermanagah and Tyrone should never have been part of Northern Ireland in the first place, I do not disagree on that and would happily let it join the Republic tomorrow but that does not change the position of Antrim and Down.
Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
The electoral evidence suggests that Fermanagh and S Tyrone is very finely balanced between Unionist and Nationalist. Unless you're suggesting population shifts of the kind that occurred when the Republic was established and Protestants from the South went North.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
On the latest polling No Deal in October is the only way to ensure a Tory majority in the autumn as the Brexit Party vote collapses to the Tories, extending again though puts Corbyn in Downing Street and the Tories collapse to third behind Labour and the Brexit Party.
Sustained No Deal could also revive the LDs more than Corbyn Labour as they are the main anti Brexit Party
What they have not got from the British government is a proposal. It is at best a sketch of what might constitute a proposal, coupled with a list of objections to the current deal on the table.
I get that bit. It’s the old “this is all about one wing of the Tory party “ shtick that grates.
It’s very dismissive and leads to serious miscalculations on their part as well.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
Presumably when the Belfast Agreement was negotiated and signed nobody thought the UK would ever be daft enough to leave the EU. It is easy to understand why.
As regards referendums, I would appreciate it if someone could clarify for me how the EU Referendum comes to be regarded as Holy Writ, whilst those leading to the BA can be ignored.
Personally I regard referendums as essentially advisory, but if they are to be seen as mandatory, why some and not others?
Because they are not inconsistent. It’s Varadkar’s pathetic politicking that has inflamed this sore. Shame on him.
Ah, it's blame the Paddys day in Brexitania. Again.
No doubt Angela and Emmanuel will stoutly fulfil that role later this week. Again.
I’m not blaming the “Paddys” (FWIW as a Irishman by descent - close enough to have the right to a passport - I find that term grossly offensive. It’s like referring to someone as a “P*ki” or a “W*g”)
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
You can have an EU passport? No wonder you are so relaxed about Brexit.
If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.
Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
What they have not got from the British government is a proposal. It is at best a sketch of what might constitute a proposal, coupled with a list of objections to the current deal on the table.
I get that bit. It’s the old “this is all about one wing of the Tory party “ shtick that grates.
It’s very dismissive and leads to serious miscalculations on their part as well.
In what way is it incorrect? This isn't a serious proposal.
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Down have been there for centuries and should not be forced into the Republic of Ireland against their will.
On BBC2 last night at 9pm there was a programme on the murder of Mountbatte and family and friends on a boat and the murder of 18 British paramilitaries in Northern Ireland on the same day in one of the costliest days of the troubles and an emphasis on the importance of the Good Friday Agreement, including when the Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long to power.
Fermanagah and Tyrone should never have been part of Northern Ireland in the first place, I do not disagree on that and would happily let it join the Republic tomorrow but that does not change the position of Antrim and Down.
Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
The electoral evidence suggests that Fermanagh and S Tyrone is very finely balanced between Unionist and Nationalist. Unless you're suggesting population shifts of the kind that occurred when the Republic was established and Protestants from the South went North.
Fermanagh and Tyrone have clear nationalist majoriities
Still makes me chuckle, the Tory Leavers and the DUP have done more than Sinn Féin/The IRA to ensure a united Ireland.
Sir John Major and Tony Blair warned a vote to leave the EU will "jeopardise the unity" of the UK as they campaigned together in Northern Ireland.
They suggested a Leave vote may re-open Scotland's independence issue and put Northern Ireland's "future at risk" by threatening its current stability.
But Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers said support for the peace process there was "rock solid".
She said it would be "highly irresponsible" to suggest otherwise.
Northern Ireland first minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster said she found the intervention "rather sad".
She told journalists "I do find it rather disgraceful for two prime ministers who know full well the importance of the peace process here in Northern Ireland to come over here and suggest that a vote in a particular direction is going to undermine that".
I think the WA should be signed as it solves the Brexit problem more neatly than any other solution, but even with the WA signed I'd look at getting rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. It's not really part of Britain when one looks at a map and has been a source of bigotry, division, bombs and a mahoosive cash sink for years. So hopefully one upshot of all this might be the unification of the island of Ireland.
The Protestant Unionist majority in counties Antrim and Queen met McGuinness.
However Northern Ireland was created in the first place as a substantial proportion of the Irish population in the North wanted to stay British rather than join the Free State and as long as that remains the case their wishes should be respected
That's a dangerous argument and can be twisted either way. For example, imagine saying in 1922 'the Catholic Irish majority in Fermanagh and Tyrone has been there for centuries and should not be forced into the United Kingdom against their will.' Yet that's what happened, with the Boundary Commission more or less a sop to delay opposition.
To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
Fermanagah and Tyrone should never have been part of Northern Ireland in the first place, I do not disagree on that and would happily let it join the Republic tomorrow but that does not change the position of Antrim and Down.
Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
The electoral evidence suggests that Fermanagh and S Tyrone is very finely balanced between Unionist and Nationalist. Unless you're suggesting population shifts of the kind that occurred when the Republic was established and Protestants from the South went North.
Fermanagah and Tyrone has a Sinn Fein MP, every seat in Antrim has a DUP MP
Mr. Meeks, I agree that the onus is on the UK Government to propose an alternative to the backstop.
However, there's little sense in the EU complaining at such a proposal's absence given they've stated they won't renegotiate anything. They're just asking for something they can immediately reject.
Right wing English nationalists do not care about Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales. Brexit is being driven by right wing English nationalists.
Wales voted Leave as did Antrim
So what? Brexit is being driven by right wing English nationalists.
The DUP backed Brexit and are the largest party in Northern Ireland and the Brexit Party won most MEPs in Wales in the European Parliament elections in May
So what? The BXP and the ERG are driving Brexit. They are hard right English nationalists. As we know most Tory members would opt to dismantle the Union rather than sacrifice Brexit. That people outside England voted for Brexit is neither here nor there.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Indeed. This is why there are supermajorities for major Constitutional changes. We have them but they were used. Parliament failed at every stage, Referendum Act, A50 Act and Withdrawal Act to engineer safeguards. It was an advisory referendum on a clear but entirely abstract question. Instead of safeguards almost the entire political class made matters worse by elevating the Referendum result into a Constitutional change in itself - popular soverienty - whuch is alien to the British system. Now no matter what happens, what ever the outcome, will be a political disaster. We are in the early stages of complete system failure made worse by many thinking we are reaching resolution. This is going to be bloody and quite possibly literally.
“The advisory referendum” argument. Yawn. How about we hold another “advisory” referendum on No Deal vs Deal vs Remain and if Remains wins, leave anyway with No Deal. After all, it was only advisory so why should anyone care?
Committing to implement a referendum where one of the outcomes was to all extents and purposes unspecified was a massive political failure by the government of the time.
Either Brexit should have been clearly defined before the vote or there should have been a second vote built into the process once the actual deal or lack of deal was known. People voted to commit themselves to a course of action before knowing what that course of action actually was. Madness.
Voting thresholds are often built into referendums on such major constitutional changes. None were added in this case, I suspect because of its status as an advisory vote.
None of this of course is the fault of leave voters. Nevertheless it now seems that we are required to to embark on a No Deal Brexit which large numbers of leave voters themselves are opposed to simply because we voted "leave" by a tiny 4% margin 3 years ago. That might seem a sensible way forward to you but it seems like insanity to me
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
The last three years have shown Labour MPs have no backbone in standing up to Corbyn.
The casual defence/silence of antisemitism tells you everything.
Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.
Mr. Meeks, I agree that the onus is on the UK Government to propose an alternative to the backstop.
However, there's little sense in the EU complaining at such a proposal's absence given they've stated they won't renegotiate anything. They're just asking for something they can immediately reject.
I don't think they're asking for anything other than the British government to organise ratification of the agreement that has already been struck and which it confirmed in March that it would not renegotiate.
Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland has.
Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
On the latest polling No Deal in October is the only way to ensure a Tory majority in the autumn as the Brexit Party vote collapses to the Tories, extending again though puts Corbyn in Downing Street and the Tories collapse to third behind Labour and the Brexit Party.
Sustained No Deal could also revive the LDs more than Corbyn Labour as they are the main anti Brexit Party
From this and other posts I get the impression that your prime objective is to ensure there is a Tory government regardless of their policies. I think someone before commented that it is like following a football team. I am a LD because of their philosophy. If that changed I wouldn't be a LD.
Voting for Jeremy Corbyn to stop No Deal is like the General in Terminator 3 who presses the button that allows SkyNet to take over the global computer network in order to quash a virus it itself helped create.
Is Sophie’s choice.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
Jeremy Corbyn only has power to the extent he can command Labour MPs.
Or in other words, to the extent that Labour MPs aren't prepared to stand up to him.
No one ever got rich betting on Labour MPs growing spines. At least not recently.
What they have not got from the British government is a proposal. It is at best a sketch of what might constitute a proposal, coupled with a list of objections to the current deal on the table.
I get that bit. It’s the old “this is all about one wing of the Tory party “ shtick that grates.
It’s very dismissive and leads to serious miscalculations on their part as well.
David Cameron's memoirs hit the shops on the 19th of next month, and might shed more light on why he called the referendum. To what extent was it to fend off Ukip, which scored only three per cent in the 2010 election, or to stop Conservatives, in Cameron's own words at the 2006 party conference, "banging on about Europe"?
It was certainly never spelled out to us, back in 1998, that it would hugely complicate the process of leaving the EU. This seems rather like an insurance company suddenly whipping out the small print, when you make a claim.
Which is precisely why people are always advised to read the small print before agreeing to anything.
What the last few weeks has shown - and what Johnson’s letter emphasises - is that the UK government’s current Brexit strategy is based on one very simple notion: most Brexit supporters are credulous, xenophobic, fools. Such disdain for voters is very Dominic Cummings.
Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
All technological advances succeed because they pander to idleness - can't be arsed to travel from York to London because it takes four days, can't be arsed to write to Morris Dancer because paper, envelope, pen, ink, walk to post office, can't be arsed to spend half an hour warming ready meal in conventional oven.
Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.
None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.
Mr. Observer, the vast majority of those who voted against the deal are pro-EU leftwing MPs. Until recently, the PM was a pro-EU, pro-Remain (at the referendum) MP.
None of which means that Brexit is not being driven by right wing English nationalists. The government is owned by the ERG and BXP, not the Labour Party.
Tory ministers get paid to repeat this idiotic lie. Whats your excuse?
The Good Friday Agreement - passed by both countries by BINDING referenda - is not undemocratic. The Backstop preserves the GFA. To continue to parrot "undemocratic" baout something democratic demonstrates the kind of small-minded stupidity this country is increasingly good at.
Its neither idiotic nor a lie. It is the truth. One I've been consistently posting here for a year while the line to take by everyone else was the WA was a good compromise - it is not.
We had an article about Brexit Myths yesterday. Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that the backstop preserves the GFA. From the Irish and Nationalist side it does maybe, but from the unionist side it does not an it is undemocratic. 5/6 unionists oppose it including Lord Trimble who signed the GFA on behalf of unionists.
Until there is a compromise that respects both communities there is no acceptable compromise.
Mr. Jessop, aye. It seems nuts to me to actively invite constant surveillance of your own home. As for the 'internet of things' - it's mostly bone idleness. I can see why some want an online doorbell/external camera for security, but an online kettle is just daft.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
No because England nor Wales has such a recent and long bloody history with their near neighbour that Northern Ireland.
As ever you really need to learn some history.
Irony meter just spiked :-)
I’ll have you know at school I did an entire project on the consequences of Pope Adrian’s Papal bull on Ireland.
Plus I’ve been doing a refresher course on Ireland for the wedding in Belfast I’ll be attending next March with lots of Presbyterians in attendance.
I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.
Comments
That’s one hell of a Freudian slip.
The regs around kettles aren't what's important here. It's how we might choose to diverge in the future around things like the implementation of autonomous vehicles. Take a look at the online debates from EU-based Tesla owners (Tesla considered by most informed observers as the market leader in autonomous driving tech). The EU regulation is essentially less trusting than in North America, so that if the car wishes to change lanes but does not complete this within 5 due to a lack of traffic gaps, the lane change is automatically cancelled. This makes the driver assist function not only inferior to the US version but potentially also more dangerous.
Perhaps this new rule is due to a well meaning but ill informed Brussels technocrat. Perhaps it's a rule that has been lobbied for by German auto. Either way, this is exactly the sort of increasingly material regulatory interference that Brexit will allow divergence from, should as a country we so wish.
1) Jeremy Corbyn
2) Some friendly and unthreatening Labour grandee
3=) Ian Blackford
3=) Liz Saville-Roberts
5) Caroline Lucas
6) Anyone else.
I'm not sure he gets beyond 1 but I'm pretty sure he doesn't get as far as 6.
That could be fun.
I would have thought SU+CM would be best at this point as it is almost of all of the economic benefits of membership with none of the "political crap" which they profess to despise.
To be honest, I think the real issue in a lot of this is actually Arlene Foster, who has been a disaster. It says an awful lot for the lack of integrity of the DUP that somebody who has behaved as ineptly she has over Cash for Ash (admittedly before she became leader) has not been forced out. She makes Chris Grayling and Michael Gove look like models of competence and integrity. Not only can I not blame SF in the slightest for not working with her, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that most of the fuss over the backstop is red meat thrown to her right wing in a bid to cling on to power.
But I still think the problem is Brexit-leaning - and perhaps even No Deal leaning - Labour MPs. Will they support a GoNU not led by a Labour MP?
I thought the aim with Northern Ireland was just to call a referendum and solve the whole thing in 5 minutes. That was all going to be done by now, wasn't it?
I'm a big Ken fan but if it doesn't work, I just have to accept that. I know less about Lady H but she must be formidable. I am sure there are downsides to her appointment, but as Alastair Meekes regularly points out 'there are no good options from here'. If Lady Hermon is one of the less bad ones, we should take it.
Or does he not count anymore?
Three times.
But they thought it wasn't so much of a disaster that they had to put aside party political advantage. Their cries of despair sound pretty phoney to me.
However, you also have to survive a Corbyn veto. What the Corbyn people seem to fear more than anything is losing control of thr Labour Party. If you elevate anyone other than Corbyn he has to worry that they'll run off with the ball, either taking the actual leadership from him or becoming the de-facto leader of Labour MPs and leaving him marginalized.
So I reckon the sweet spot is non-Labour, but also not anyone from a party that's competing with Labour.
If in fact the GFA renders it impossible to leave the EU - which effectively is pretty close to what Mike Smithson is saying - then the failure of Remain to say so clearly, unambiguously and frequently during the campaign is a bit of a puzzle.
We still don't know how Ireland/EU will deal with border issues in the event of No Deal. Isn't clarity on this becoming urgent?
The solution is to drop the undemocratic backstop and for both parties to compromise which was the solution that brought about the GFA in the first place.
The EU trying to subjugate unionists and condescendingly saying "we're more powerful so do as we say" is no better to Brits doing that. If we wish to avoid future violence then treating all communities with respect is required and the backstop is absolutely hated by one community.
Figaro reports possible arrest of UK consul employee in Hong Kong
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/hongkong-londres-preoccupe-par-la-possible-arrestation-en-chine-d-un-employe-consulaire-20190820
The Tories need to drop the absolutism of their red lines on ECJ jurisdiction and free movement. Until they do, the GFA remains incompatible with the Tory commitment to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.
Which of course was always intended to be purely advisory.
Hong Kong: British consulate staffer 'detained at China border' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-49403619
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/30/irish-government-brit-bashing-hard-brexit-rhetoric-ulster-volunteer-force-uvf
A task that he is completely failing at.
Seems its being kept low key by the UK
and since when did english lefties ?
I suspect he is right - there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland in 2020/21 - but the poll is called a Border Poll and will result in the unification of Ireland
It's difficult to see why anybody would have a problem with that.
Even if Foster goes a poll at the weekend showed 5 out of 6 Northern Ireland Unionists oppose the backstop so that position will not change
I’m blaming Leo Varadkar for his political manoeuvres around the backstop specifically. There’s more than enough blame to go around for other “leaders” in both the U.K. and the EU.
The fury that it would engender in the DUP would be a bonus.
I love the way people just bash off any old crap on NI without having any understanding of the place or even bothering to check the large body of opniion tracking that's available.
Most of the rubbish posted on NI is far from the mark.
https://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2018/Political_Attitudes/NIRELND2.html
They really don’t get it, do they?
As for smart lightbulbs - no thanks. Too much to go wrong in a multitude of ways. Unless, of course, they use tech Mrs J has worked on.
Sustained No Deal is likely to put Corbyn in Downing Street.
Mr. Eagles, if the vote had been 52/48 the other way, would you be so alarmed at England and Wales being chained to the EU against their will?
Sustained No Deal could also revive the LDs more than Corbyn Labour as they are the main anti Brexit Party
It’s very dismissive and leads to serious miscalculations on their part as well.
If you want to change something in a negotiation / meeting people come with ideas and possible plans. Boris hasn't come up with ideas / plans he's just saying we can't have this and doesn't provide any ways out of the mess.
Which is why I read that letter exactly as that EU diplomat does..
Sir John Major and Tony Blair warned a vote to leave the EU will "jeopardise the unity" of the UK as they campaigned together in Northern Ireland.
They suggested a Leave vote may re-open Scotland's independence issue and put Northern Ireland's "future at risk" by threatening its current stability.
But Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers said support for the peace process there was "rock solid".
She said it would be "highly irresponsible" to suggest otherwise.
Northern Ireland first minister and DUP leader Arlene Foster said she found the intervention "rather sad".
She told journalists "I do find it rather disgraceful for two prime ministers who know full well the importance of the peace process here in Northern Ireland to come over here and suggest that a vote in a particular direction is going to undermine that".
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486016
However, there's little sense in the EU complaining at such a proposal's absence given they've stated they won't renegotiate anything. They're just asking for something they can immediately reject.
Either Brexit should have been clearly defined before the vote or there should have been a second vote built into the process once the actual deal or lack of deal was known. People voted to commit themselves to a course of action before knowing what that course of action actually was. Madness.
Voting thresholds are often built into referendums on such major constitutional changes. None were added in this case, I suspect because of its status as an advisory vote.
None of this of course is the fault of leave voters. Nevertheless it now seems that we are required to to embark on a No Deal Brexit which large numbers of leave voters themselves are opposed to simply because we voted "leave" by a tiny 4% margin 3 years ago. That might seem a sensible way forward to you but it seems like insanity to me
The casual defence/silence of antisemitism tells you everything.
As ever you really need to learn some history.
The UK's political class hasn't done well recently, but the EU is also full of shit.
Edited extra bit: must be off. Electrician's visiting shortly. Joy.
No one ever got rich betting on Labour MPs growing spines. At least not recently.
Which is precisely why people are always advised to read the small print before agreeing to anything.
We had an article about Brexit Myths yesterday. Perhaps the biggest myth of all is that the backstop preserves the GFA. From the Irish and Nationalist side it does maybe, but from the unionist side it does not an it is undemocratic. 5/6 unionists oppose it including Lord Trimble who signed the GFA on behalf of unionists.
Until there is a compromise that respects both communities there is no acceptable compromise.
Plus I’ve been doing a refresher course on Ireland for the wedding in Belfast I’ll be attending next March with lots of Presbyterians in attendance.
I’ve already decided on the outfit, a green suit, white shirt, and a orange tie.