Philip_Thompson: "Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain negotiated the agreement.
Me now: Britain took part in negotiations yes but I didn't say negotiations now did I? Why are you changing the words? Parliament didn't ratify the agreement, therefore Britain did not reach a deal. A deal is only reached once it is ratified. Anything unratified dies off and has no legal consequences. Political consequences maybe, but not legal.
If a deal had been reached, then Parliament would have ratified it and we would have left with that deal already. No deal was reached though.
Philip_Thompson: "May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain did. In return for giving those confirmations, the Article 50 period was extended. There were legal consequences.
Me now: No, May did. It was May's agreement, she represented Britain at the time but doesn't anymore. Parliament never ratified that and there was no legally-binding confirmation that the WDA would not be reopened. The extension of Article 50 was legally-binding, the claim the WDA wouldn't be reopened was politics by May and the rest of the Council but not legally-binding.
Philip Thompson: "The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
AlastairMeeks: No, simply incorrect. Boris Johnson has said what he doesn't like. He has no suggestions as to how to meet the EU's concerns, despite conceding that these need to be met.
Me: Not incorrect. And there are another 30 days from yesterday to engage to find a solution to address concerns. 30 days that are possible because the decision to extend was legally-binding but May's politics was not.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
The "utmost efforts of the UK Government" involved 1) invoking Article 50 before we were ready, 2) realising that we wouldn't be ready in time, 3) asking for a withdrawal agreement when we realised that we wouldn't be ready in time, 4) asking that the backstop being extended to the whole of the UK, 5) calling a general election with an autist PM not capable of adult conversation, 6) staying in Government without being capable of delivering anything, 7) screaming abuse at anybody and everybody like a drunk in a train station.
If that's your definition of "utmost efforts", I would like to see your definition of "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map".
Your list is half things May did to actually try to make passing the WA more likely (calling an election to get a stable majority or expanding the backstop to the whole UK) or just subjective anti-government ranting. There isn't much point in engaging.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
If Britain wants a different WA it needs (a) to spell out the basis of its negotiating position; and (b) more time in which such a negotiation can take place. It also needs a solution to the Irish question.
It has not done (a) or (c) and has set its face against (b).
The choice to exit without a deal is entirely the British government’s. It is not being pushed into anything.
You could flip that. What is the point of agreeing more time to negotiate if the EU says renegitiation of the WA is not possible? The EU is making a stupid position by Boris become logical.
To start the process again on the basis of a different negotiating position.
The only problem is that Boris does not have one.
Like pretty much everyone else in this shitshow he only knows what he is against and not what he is for.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Philip_Thompson: "Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain negotiated the agreement.
Me now: Britain took part in negotiations yes but I didn't say negotiations. Parliament didn't ratify the agreement, therefore Britain did not reach a deal. A deal is only reached once it is ratified. Anything unratified dies off and has no legal consequences. Political consequences maybe, but not legal.
If a deal had been reached, then Parliament would have ratified it and we would have left with that deal already. No deal was reached though.
Philip_Thompson: "May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain did. In return for giving those confirmations, the Article 50 period was extended. There were legal consequences.
Me now: No, May did. It was May's signature on that letter, she represented Britain at the time but doesn't anymore. Parliament never ratified that and there was no legally-binding confirmation that the WDA would not be reopened. The extension of Article 50 was legally-binding, the claim the WDA wouldn't be reopened was politics by May and the rest of the Council but not legally-binding.
Philip Thompson: "The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
AlastairMeeks: No, simply incorrect. Boris Johnson has said what he doesn't like. He has no suggestions as to how to meet the EU's concerns, despite conceding that these need to be met.
Me: Not incorrect. And there are another 30 days from yesterday to engage to find a solution to address concerns. 30 days that are possible because the decision to extend was legally-binding but May's politics was not.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
If Britain wants a different WA it needs (a) to spell out the basis of its negotiating position; and (b) more time in which such a negotiation can take place. It also needs a solution to the Irish question.
It has not done (a) or (c) and has set its face against (b).
The choice to exit without a deal is entirely the British government’s. It is not being pushed into anything.
You could flip that. What is the point of agreeing more time to negotiate if the EU says renegitiation of the WA is not possible? The EU is making a stupid position by Boris become logical.
To start the process again on the basis of a different negotiating position.
The only problem is that Boris does not have one.
Like pretty much everyone else in this shitshow he only knows what he is against and not what he is for.
I don't think the EU has agreed a new renegotiation can be commenced. They are saying the WA is the only game in town.
It's been a horrifically wet August which will have reduced demand for a lot of summer related products. But something to keep an eye on. Consumer demand has been remarkably resilient to date.
The official figures showed a excellent month in July, did they not?
Philip_Thompson: "Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain negotiated the agreement.
Me now: Britain took part in negotiations yes but I didn't say negotiations. Parliament didn't ratify the agreement, therefore Britain did not reach a deal. A deal is only reached once it is ratified. Anything unratified dies off and has no legal consequences. Political consequences maybe, but not legal.
If a deal had been reached, then Parliament would have ratified it and we would have left with that deal already. No deal was reached though.
Philip_Thompson: "May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain did. In return for giving those confirmations, the Article 50 period was extended. There were legal consequences.
Me now: No, May did. It was May's signature on that letter, she represented Britain at the time but doesn't anymore. Parliament never ratified that and there was no legally-binding confirmation that the WDA would not be reopened. The extension of Article 50 was legally-binding, the claim the WDA wouldn't be reopened was politics by May and the rest of the Council but not legally-binding.
Philip Thompson: "The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
AlastairMeeks: No, simply incorrect. Boris Johnson has said what he doesn't like. He has no suggestions as to how to meet the EU's concerns, despite conceding that these need to be met.
Me: Not incorrect. And there are another 30 days from yesterday to engage to find a solution to address concerns. 30 days that are possible because the decision to extend was legally-binding but May's politics was not.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
And yet parliment itself did not recognise the authority of the UK government to take action, bringing the ratification on itself.
If it had respected the authority of the UK government to 'do a deal', it would have voted for it.
It did not.
Clearly the UK parliment disagrees with you Alastair.
The WA is not a binding legal obligation on the UK, nor are our promises not to reopen it. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and right now nothing is agreed.
But the EU are of course entirely entitled to say that is the deal on the table, take it or leave it. If we leave it and they maintain their position we leave without a deal. What Merkel did, which is entirely reasonable, is say, well, have you got a proposal that meets our concerns? If you do we will look at it. The ball is firmly in Boris' court as it should be since we are the ones looking for a change.
This may or may not produce a change in the deal that the EU can live with. If it doesn't then we have the choice of accepting May's deal or proceeding with no deal. Both sides of this have their choices and have to live with the consequences of their choices. In respect of NI having the UK leave without a deal means that the EU have to decide if they are going to erect a hard border or not. That is their call, as it is ours on our side. We have said we won't.
What I find tiresome is the emotive rubbish from both sides saying that the other is being stupid, dishonest, principled (god help us) or foolish. None of that is true or relevant. The deal May made has been rejected by Parliament. What happens next is for both parties to determine in their own interests. It would be better if we could be a little more grown up about it.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
Only problem: when have the UK and France ever sat down with goodwill on both sides?
The WA is not a binding legal obligation on the UK, nor are our promises not to reopen it. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and right now nothing is agreed.
But the EU are of course entirely entitled to say that is the deal on the table, take it or leave it. If we leave it and they maintain their position we leave without a deal. What Merkel did, which is entirely reasonable, is say, well, have you got a proposal that meets our concerns? If you do we will look at it. The ball is firmly in Boris' court as it should be since we are the ones looking for a change.
This may or may not produce a change in the deal that the EU can live with. If it doesn't then we have the choice of accepting May's deal or proceeding with no deal. Both sides of this have their choices and have to live with the consequences of their choices. In respect of NI having the UK leave without a deal means that the EU have to decide if they are going to erect a hard border or not. That is their call, as it is ours on our side. We have said we won't.
What I find tiresome is the emotive rubbish from both sides saying that the other is being stupid, dishonest, principled (god help us) or foolish. None of that is true or relevant. The deal May made has been rejected by Parliament. What happens next is for both parties to determine in their own interests. It would be better if we could be a little more grown up about it.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
Elections don't work like that. If Barack Obama gets elected saying he will renegotiate NAFTA or David Cameron gets elected saying he will not reorganise the NHS, it doesn't mean they don't have a mandate when they don't do those things.
The only thing that matters is what is on the ballot paper. That is why Remainers should have been unafraid of just doing EEA from the beginning.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
But a hell of a lot more Remainers have been blocking it than Leavers.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
Elections don't work like that. If Barack Obama gets elected saying he will renegotiate NAFTA or David Cameron gets elected saying he will not reorganise the NHS, it doesn't mean they don't have a mandate when they don't do those things.
The only thing that matters is what is on the ballot paper. That is why Remainers should have been unafraid of just doing EEA from the beginning.
The referendum was formally advisory. In reality it could not be ignored.
The ballot paper had a formal question on it. In reality, the way in which the victory was won is central to the mandate secured.
This is not difficult stuff, but you are determined not to see it.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
The actions of Remainers who voted for Article 50, represent Leave voting seats, said they would implement the Referendum result by proceeding with Brexit. Those Remainers? What is their "mandate"? Is lying to their voters "irrelevant"? Because if they had not been lying toe-rags, we would have Brexited by now.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
Only problem: when have the UK and France ever sat down with goodwill on both sides?
Over 2 billion Euros of French exports go to the UK, they want a Deal if a backstop alternative avoids a hard border in Ireland and the integrity of the single market is protected
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
The "utmost efforts of the UK Government" involved 1) invoking Article 50 before we were ready, 2) realising that we wouldn't be ready in time, 3) asking for a withdrawal agreement when we realised that we wouldn't be ready in time, 4) asking that the backstop being extended to the whole of the UK, 5) calling a general election with an autist PM not capable of adult conversation, 6) staying in Government without being capable of delivering anything, 7) screaming abuse at anybody and everybody like a drunk in a train station.
If that's your definition of "utmost efforts", I would like to see your definition of "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map".
Your list is half things May did to actually try to make passing the WA more likely (calling an election to get a stable majority or expanding the backstop to the whole UK) or just subjective anti-government ranting. There isn't much point in engaging.
I was debunking your Dollschlosslegend (spelling?).
The "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map" phrase was meant to emphasise the distance between your depiction of a competent government efforting utmostly and the actual fact of the matter (the "total fucking shit-show etc").
My anti-government ranting was an appropriate response given your pro-government hagiography. Even the Leavers on here now concede that the May administration was a (searches for a phrase, ah yes) "total fucking sh..." - oh Godsdammit, I'll just abbreviate it, it's quicker - TFSS.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
Apart from honour the Good Friday Agreement, or anything else that taints the purity of Brexit.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
Well, good luck getting that through parliment.
No problem, remember the Brady amendment ie the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop is the only Brexit solution to have got a majority in the Commons
The other point to note is that, even if the gestation period for unicorns were less than 30 days, coming up with an alternative proposal acceptable to the EU wouldn't mean that they would be willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement. Their position would be 'That's great, your alternative is going to work and therefore the backstop will never be triggered, and we're happy to confirm that in the political declaration or a side letter'. It wouldn't be that the insurance policy (as they see it) of the backstop could be removed.
Yes. The Boris Deal (which is going to happen) will have the backstop but dressed in such a manner that it can masquerade as being something different.
There are two big 'events' to be managed -
(1) The announcement before 31 Oct that an extension into 2020 has been agreed to allow time for "fresh talks with no pre-conditions".
(2) The unveiling in 2020 of the New Deal.
Both of these will need to be presented as a Win for the UK government - a Win made possible by the dynamic leadership of Boris Johnson.
We see today that much of the media can be relied upon to do their bit.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The extension of Article 50 to 31 October 2019 and the terms on which that extension was agreed do have legal effect, however tiresome you may find it.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
Elections don't work like that. If Barack Obama gets elected saying he will renegotiate NAFTA or David Cameron gets elected saying he will not reorganise the NHS, it doesn't mean they don't have a mandate when they don't do those things.
The only thing that matters is what is on the ballot paper. That is why Remainers should have been unafraid of just doing EEA from the beginning.
The referendum was formally advisory. In reality it could not be ignored.
The ballot paper had a formal question on it. In reality, the way in which the victory was won is central to the mandate secured.
This is not difficult stuff, but you are determined not to see it.
We only had an EU referendum in 2016 as the Tories won a majority in 2015 with it in their manifesto, if we get a Labour, LD, SNP Government at the next general election with manifesto commitments for EUref2 in those parties manifestos fair enough, until then the Brexit vote must be delivered
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
Only problem: when have the UK and France ever sat down with goodwill on both sides?
Over 2 billion Euros of French exports go to the UK, they want a Deal if a backstop alternative avoids a hard border in Ireland and the integrity of the single market is protected
One person spewing some bile on social media is not worrying in the slightest. It is what people used to say after 6 pints in the pub, now they can say it on Twitter. It is indicative of precisely nothing and deserves to be ignored, not presented here like it's some sort of political commentary.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
A lot of Conservative MPs who are government loyalists campaigned for Remain in 2016, voted three times for Theresa May's deal and will support Boris in his attempts to leave on October 31st, come what may.
For some reason these MPs are now one of the most criticised groups of politicians, thrice damned by all sides.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The extension of Article 50 to 31 October 2019 and the terms on which that extension was agreed do have legal effect, however tiresome you may find it.
It had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months. Nothing else. In that 7 months the parties are free to agree or disagree as they think fit.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The extension of Article 50 to 31 October 2019 and the terms on which that extension was agreed do have legal effect, however tiresome you may find it.
It had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months. Nothing else. In that 7 months the parties are free to agree or disagree as they think fit.
It was entered into on the basis of undertakings. It is depressing to see how faithless so many ardent Leavers are about honouring undertakings given to secure agreements.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
It had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months. Nothing else. In that 7 months the parties are free to agree or disagree as they think fit.
Extending the deadline for leaving by 7 months had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months.
I hope you weren't charging us for that opinion...
Personally I think Labour MPs ex Mann, Flint and Barron representing leave constituencies are amongst those who are the most at fault in this whole mess. Lisa Nandy is up near the top of the list.
Most of them seem to have got off scot free but an autumn election could be "interesting" for some of them (No no the Tories won't win Wigan !)
The spin over how positive or otherwise Merkel and Macron have been (and subsequent to-and-fro from Alistair, Philip, David and others) strikes me as a rather long-winded way of saying "nothing has changed".
To my ear, Merkel was politely saying "if you're not confident there'd be a deal getting you out of the backstop in two years, good luck if you think you can do it in a month". And Macron's doing the same.
Or pretty much folding their arms and saying "this is a lighthouse, your move".
I agree it's not beyond the bounds that the EU will change its position on the inviolability of the WA (after a year and two extensions so far in which there has been no movement). But I'm not sure I'd bet on them doing so.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The extension of Article 50 to 31 October 2019 and the terms on which that extension was agreed do have legal effect, however tiresome you may find it.
It had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months. Nothing else. In that 7 months the parties are free to agree or disagree as they think fit.
It was entered into on the basis of undertakings. It is depressing to see how faithless so many ardent Leavers are about honouring undertakings given to secure agreements.
Undertakings May made. We have no obligation to honour undertakings of a previous failed Prime Minister, any more than any other nation does. The legal consequences are what matters, everything else is moot.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
LOL Scott you want to post something from Sweary Dunt about dignity, grace and honour? I wonder why this was a rare Tweet which he didn't fill with expletives.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
Personally I think Labour MPs ex Mann, Flint and Barron representing leave constituencies are amongst those who are the most at fault in this whole mess. Lisa Nandy is up near the top of the list.
Most of them seem to have got off scot free but an autumn election could be "interesting" for some of them (No no the Tories won't win Wigan !)
No, the Tories won't win Wigan but the Brexit Party might if Nandy votes to extend again in October (though she has now said she would vote for the Withdrawal Agreement I believe).
The Brexit Party won the Wigan local authority area in the European Parliament elections
Thanks. Yes, I'm doing it with YouTube, essentially.
That is good. Remember, it is meant to be practical and personal. Anything that doesn't work or suit can be parked. If any of it works for you, use it as and when you see fit. Best wishes.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The extension of Article 50 to 31 October 2019 and the terms on which that extension was agreed do have legal effect, however tiresome you may find it.
It had the legal effect of preserving our membership of the EU for another 7 months. Nothing else. In that 7 months the parties are free to agree or disagree as they think fit.
Precisely!
Britain is bound to the 7 extra months, Boris can't say "I've had enough I'm taking us out tomorrow" - we are not commited to any nonsense about not renegotiating or anything else.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
Not sure what counts as 'Britain' here. The Commons' rejection of the WA implies the necessity of re-engaging. Maybe that's Britain. It's the UK's sovereign body.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
Only problem: when have the UK and France ever sat down with goodwill on both sides?
Apart from in the Crimean War, both world wars, Boxer crisis, Concorde, Channel Tunnel and all the other less well known bits of perfectly amicable and mutually beneficial co-operation between our two countries that go on all the time you mean?
Come back to me when you can distinguish between comforting fantasy and reality. There is not this international legal entity called Theresa May.
Come back to me when you can distinguish between legally-binding and politics.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
Apart from honour the Good Friday Agreement, or anything else that taints the purity of Brexit.
We are commited to the letter of the Good Friday Agreement, although if the letter of that clashes with the letter of Article 50 then the latter must take precedence.
However I don't think they do. Hence why there have been zero cases won at either the Supreme Court or European Court of Justice by Brexit opponents showing how Brexit violates the GFA. Instead we get amorphous talk of the "spirit of the GFA".
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
That was not the prospectus.
Yes it was.
Fantasy Phil strikes again. Vote Leave assured the public that Britain would easily negotiate a deal.
Personally I think Labour MPs ex Mann, Flint and Barron representing leave constituencies are amongst those who are the most at fault in this whole mess. Lisa Nandy is up near the top of the list.
Most of them seem to have got off scot free but an autumn election could be "interesting" for some of them (No no the Tories won't win Wigan !)
A pile of shit as big this must by definition have many contributors. Nobody can produce this much on their own.
But let's not forget who was and is the architect, the people who had the grand vision and pursued it with a zeal that ultimately could not be denied.
Though she (sic: Nandy) has now said she would vote for the Withdrawal Agreement I believe
She's saying that now because it is no longer Tory policy, Johnson has disavowed it and moved on to something else. May essentially internalised the struggle between leavers desire to get out high or hell water and remainers wish to well, remain. The WA was the result of this, an internal compromise - NOT a red meat policy for the sake solely of the Tories. And this is seemingly what plenty of Labour Mps failed or didn't want to realise at the time. May WAS the compromise, Johnson is much much closer to a "true" Tory political take on this issue.
You can argue May failed to reach across or sell it to Labour MPs, but you need to purchase buildings insurance for your mortgage too even if noone attempts to sell it to you.
That is good. Remember, it is meant to be practical and personal. Anything that doesn't work or suit can be parked. If any of it works for you, use it as and when you see fit. Best wishes.
Yet leave did had a mandate because it won the referendum. That vote is not being respected.
Leave won the referendum by adamantly and repeatedly insisting that Britain would leave with a deal - "we hold all the cards", remember. When Leave politicians turned their backs on the deal on the table, they turned their backs on the mandate.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
That was not the prospectus.
Yes it was.
Fantasy Phil strikes again. Vote Leave assured the public that Britain would easily negotiate a deal.
Britain did easily negotiate a deal. Parliament rejected it remember?
You're still struggling to understand the difference between negotiate and ratify I see.
And, and remainers didn't vote for it either. Both extremes are to blame for the current position.
If all Leavers in Parliament had voted for the deal on the table, it would have passed. They decided not to. So they now need a fresh mandate for what comes next.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
You keep saying this Alastair but it doesn't make it true.
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
If Leavers want a mandate for their actions, they have to find one. They can't concoct one from the actions of others. Their headlong pursuit of no deal Brexit has no foundation in the referendum vote in 2016, which was predicated on Britain securing the easiest deal in history.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
The mandate is to leave on the best possible terms. If the best terms our useless politicians can come up with is no deal so be it.
That was not the prospectus.
Yes it was.
Fantasy Phil strikes again. Vote Leave assured the public that Britain would easily negotiate a deal.
Britain did easily negotiate a deal. Parliament rejected it remember?
You're still struggling to understand the difference between negotiate and ratify I see.
So, in accordance with the prospectus, a new deal needs to be negotiated. Leave's failure doesn't give them the right to ignore their own prospectus.
Personally I think Labour MPs ex Mann, Flint and Barron representing leave constituencies are amongst those who are the most at fault in this whole mess. Lisa Nandy is up near the top of the list.
Most of them seem to have got off scot free but an autumn election could be "interesting" for some of them (No no the Tories won't win Wigan !)
A pile of shit as big this must by definition have many contributors. Nobody can produce this much on their own.
But let's not forget who was and is the architect, the people who had the grand vision and pursued it with a zeal that ultimately could not be denied.
Comments
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain negotiated the agreement.
Me now: Britain took part in negotiations yes but I didn't say negotiations now did I? Why are you changing the words? Parliament didn't ratify the agreement, therefore Britain did not reach a deal. A deal is only reached once it is ratified. Anything unratified dies off and has no legal consequences. Political consequences maybe, but not legal.
If a deal had been reached, then Parliament would have ratified it and we would have left with that deal already. No deal was reached though.
Philip_Thompson: "May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT.
AlastairMeeks: Not fact. Britain did. In return for giving those confirmations, the Article 50 period was extended. There were legal consequences.
Me now: No, May did. It was May's agreement, she represented Britain at the time but doesn't anymore. Parliament never ratified that and there was no legally-binding confirmation that the WDA would not be reopened. The extension of Article 50 was legally-binding, the claim the WDA wouldn't be reopened was politics by May and the rest of the Council but not legally-binding.
Philip Thompson: "The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
AlastairMeeks: No, simply incorrect. Boris Johnson has said what he doesn't like. He has no suggestions as to how to meet the EU's concerns, despite conceding that these need to be met.
Me: Not incorrect. And there are another 30 days from yesterday to engage to find a solution to address concerns. 30 days that are possible because the decision to extend was legally-binding but May's politics was not.
The only problem is that Boris does not have one.
Like pretty much everyone else in this shitshow he only knows what he is against and not what he is for.
If it had respected the authority of the UK government to 'do a deal', it would have voted for it.
It did not.
Clearly the UK parliment disagrees with you Alastair.
But the EU are of course entirely entitled to say that is the deal on the table, take it or leave it. If we leave it and they maintain their position we leave without a deal. What Merkel did, which is entirely reasonable, is say, well, have you got a proposal that meets our concerns? If you do we will look at it. The ball is firmly in Boris' court as it should be since we are the ones looking for a change.
This may or may not produce a change in the deal that the EU can live with. If it doesn't then we have the choice of accepting May's deal or proceeding with no deal. Both sides of this have their choices and have to live with the consequences of their choices. In respect of NI having the UK leave without a deal means that the EU have to decide if they are going to erect a hard border or not. That is their call, as it is ours on our side. We have said we won't.
What I find tiresome is the emotive rubbish from both sides saying that the other is being stupid, dishonest, principled (god help us) or foolish. None of that is true or relevant. The deal May made has been rejected by Parliament. What happens next is for both parties to determine in their own interests. It would be better if we could be a little more grown up about it.
The deal was never ratified, it is not legally binding.
The commitment to not renegotiate the WDA was never ratified, it is not legally-binding.
May could have said she is selling Northern Ireland in exchange for our divorce payment, if Parliament doesn't ratify it then that was never a deal reached. Whatever May said or doesn't say is immaterial unless it was passed into international law or domestic law - the deal and commitment not to renegotiate are neither.
Britain is commited to what it is legally-bound to, not the failed politics of an ex-PM.
The only thing that matters is what is on the ballot paper. That is why Remainers should have been unafraid of just doing EEA from the beginning.
The actions of Remainers are irrelevant to whether or not Leavers have a mandate for their actions.
The ballot paper had a formal question on it. In reality, the way in which the victory was won is central to the mandate secured.
This is not difficult stuff, but you are determined not to see it.
https://twitter.com/Stephen00105059/status/1164500679307735041
Every MP is accountable for their vote. Ideally a consensus would have been reached about a soft Brexit that many remainers could support. That consensus did not happen but it does not excuse each and every one their vote.
Furthermore, a Parliament dominated by remainers rejecting one possible deal did not invalidate the choice that the British people made. If we cannot get a deal we still need to leave. Its a disappointing outcome (no deal), not the one many would have expected but it is the logical one.
By us.
https://tradingeconomics.com/france/exports-to-united-kingdom
The "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map" phrase was meant to emphasise the distance between your depiction of a competent government efforting utmostly and the actual fact of the matter (the "total fucking shit-show etc").
My anti-government ranting was an appropriate response given your pro-government hagiography. Even the Leavers on here now concede that the May administration was a (searches for a phrase, ah yes) "total fucking sh..." - oh Godsdammit, I'll just abbreviate it, it's quicker - TFSS.
You just know he spends his holiday in the Med, and dreams of owning an apartment on the Algarve.
There are two big 'events' to be managed -
(1) The announcement before 31 Oct that an extension into 2020 has been agreed to allow time for "fresh talks with no pre-conditions".
(2) The unveiling in 2020 of the New Deal.
Both of these will need to be presented as a Win for the UK government - a Win made possible by the dynamic leadership of Boris Johnson.
We see today that much of the media can be relied upon to do their bit.
If they want to continue to pursue a deal, they are welcome to do so. But they can't threaten "do or die" on 31 October because they're having a temper tantrum.
The same is of course true of Remainers on their side. They have no mandate to revoke either.
For some reason these MPs are now one of the most criticised groups of politicians, thrice damned by all sides.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1164506004022865923
Ah, my coat. How kind.
I hope you weren't charging us for that opinion...
Most of them seem to have got off scot free but an autumn election could be "interesting" for some of them (No no the Tories won't win Wigan !)
To my ear, Merkel was politely saying "if you're not confident there'd be a deal getting you out of the backstop in two years, good luck if you think you can do it in a month". And Macron's doing the same.
Or pretty much folding their arms and saying "this is a lighthouse, your move".
I agree it's not beyond the bounds that the EU will change its position on the inviolability of the WA (after a year and two extensions so far in which there has been no movement). But I'm not sure I'd bet on them doing so.
The Brexit Party won the Wigan local authority area in the European Parliament elections
Best wishes.
Britain is bound to the 7 extra months, Boris can't say "I've had enough I'm taking us out tomorrow" - we are not commited to any nonsense about not renegotiating or anything else.
However I don't think they do. Hence why there have been zero cases won at either the Supreme Court or European Court of Justice by Brexit opponents showing how Brexit violates the GFA. Instead we get amorphous talk of the "spirit of the GFA".
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2019/08/21/01003-20190821QCMWWW00013-l-europe-doit-elle-accepter-de-renegocier-l-accord-de-brexit-avec-boris-johnson.php
But let's not forget who was and is the architect, the people who had the grand vision and pursued it with a zeal that ultimately could not be denied.
The Tory Party. For it is they.
May essentially internalised the struggle between leavers desire to get out high or hell water and remainers wish to well, remain. The WA was the result of this, an internal compromise - NOT a red meat policy for the sake solely of the Tories.
And this is seemingly what plenty of Labour Mps failed or didn't want to realise at the time. May WAS the compromise, Johnson is much much closer to a "true" Tory political take on this issue.
You can argue May failed to reach across or sell it to Labour MPs, but you need to purchase buildings insurance for your mortgage too even if noone attempts to sell it to you.
You're still struggling to understand the difference between negotiate and ratify I see.
No deal has no mandate.