Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
I was defending MD, not criticizing HYUFD, but I don't even think HYUFD would claim he wasn't partisan. In fact I'm sure he is proud of it.
Sorry you are right, I didn't read what you wrote properly. Apologies
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
Then the EU would have agreed that the absence of a hard border would permanently depend on the whim of the UK parliament. That is unacceptable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
Vote Leave essentially promised we would leave immediately. May fucking pandered to this, presumably through ego or fear.
But as we actually discussed at the bloody time, Brexit should be a process, not an event.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris for example although you could say the same about any number of other influential reversers who savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
Then the EU would have agreed that the absence of a hard border would permanently depend on the whim of the UK parliament. That is unacceptable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
So be it, but the UK will need to come back to the table, and one of the first things it will need to agree is an equivalent to the backstop to remove the border.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
It isn't very surprising that Leavers don't trust that argument when Remainers have already boasted about demographics changing in their favour.
I heard there was a new proposal recently that breaking Ireland's import rules could be made a crime under British law. Apparently customs experts say, combined with electronic monitoring and pre-checks it is workable. The biggest challenge that remains is live animals, which EU law requires to be inspected before they cross the border and this can not be monitored electronically. Given Ireland is an island and diseases would be contained there anyway, and inspections would happen at the arrival station inside ROI (and therefore before moving on to another EU country) it seems like a simple EU law change to give Ireland an exception could work.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you could say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
The tragedy is that TMay was the last person on earth you would want to choose to sell TMay's deal.
Mr. Boy, voting to leave the EU then thrice against a deal puts someone in a less than rational position when they complain about leaving with no deal, which is what they've voted for on multiple occasions.
What's so bad about the deal, from a pro-EU MP's perspective? Even those bonkers enough to want the customs union have it on the table within the bounds of the political declaration.
They're just too partisan, whether that's anti-Conservative nodding dog Labour MPs, or ideologically pro-EU Lib Dems.
The ERG gets derided for being thick, but at least they voted for what they actually want.
You are an extreme partisan like HYUFD.
Just like the HYUFD never mentions the ERG when criticizing "Remainer MPs" and Corbyn MPs, you similarly criticize the "nodding dog Labour MPs or pure EU Lib Dems" but forget to mention the Tory Remainer MPs.
To be fair, how many Tory Remainer MPs have a Remainer attitude is a moot point. We all thought Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, Matt Hancock were Remainers until the lure of the Ministerial Car was too much to ignore.
I think putting MD in the same box as HYUFD in terms of being partisan is just a tad unfair to put it mildly.
HYUFD who said Back Boris as next leader, while the self appointed judges judged him the biggest betting lay ever?
I was defending MD, not criticizing HYUFD, but I don't even think HYUFD would claim he wasn't partisan. In fact I'm sure he is proud of it.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than an obvious reality. We are divided amongst ourselves. We are weak as a result. The EU still has a good chance of having the UK not leaving at all but to continue paying into the pot at the current rate despite losing our share of EU goodies such as the EIB and the medicine regulator. In these circumstances it is remarkable that May's deal is as favourable as it was.
The proximate problems with our negotiating position are that is not well understood, realistic or got broad agreement in the UK. The fundamental problem is that Brexit is crap. This negotiation is about how to make things worse in a managed way. No-one wants to sign up to that.
Obviously I have a different assessment of the merits of Brexit than you do. But I completely agree that the problem has been the lack of a broad agreement in the UK about what we actually want.
Tyre hitting the road, this is a negotiation for a downgrade on the status quo. Leavers don't accept it is a negotiation for a downgrade and Remainers don't want to be a part of it. That's why there is no realistic engagement or consensus.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
Then the EU would have agreed that the absence of a hard border would permanently depend on the whim of the UK parliament. That is unacceptable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
So be it, but the UK will need to come back to the table, and one of the first things it will need to agree is an equivalent to the backstop to remove the border.
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to agree that if we leave with no deal much of the WA will end up being agreed anyway as it is so clearly in both parties' interests. But there is no guarantee that will include the absence of a hard border. My proposal maintains the status quo, possibly forever.
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
Balls as in 'bravery or courage' is a generally accepted usage.
Gosh. The things you learn on PB.
It's a very sexist term. I shouldn't imagine many ladies like to use it
With apologies ... Boris has only got one ball The other is in the Albert Hall Rees Mogg is somewhat similar But poor old Javid has no balls at all
Given that he has 4 children (all with his wife unlike his boss) I am not finding this an entirely convincing line.
Balls as in 'bravery or courage' is a generally accepted usage.
Gosh. The things you learn on PB.
It's a very sexist term. I shouldn't imagine many ladies like to use it
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
It isn't very surprising that Leavers don't trust that argument when Remainers have already boasted about demographics changing in their favour.
I heard there was a new proposal recently that breaking Ireland's import rules could be made a crime under British law. Apparently customs experts say, combined with electronic monitoring and pre-checks it is workable. The biggest challenge that remains is live animals, which EU law requires to be inspected before they cross the border and this can not be monitored electronically. Given Ireland is an island and diseases would be contained there anyway, and inspections would happen at the arrival station inside ROI (and therefore before moving on to another EU country) it seems like a simple EU law change to give Ireland an exception could work.
Regarding the demographics point: tough shit for Brexiters. Major constitutional change requires broad, deep, and durable consent.
Which Brexit don’t have.
Although it could have, had Brexitry pushed for a soft form from the outset.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
A no deal has exactly the same effect. Such an arrangement prevents the imposition of a hard border, possibly (probably) forever. And if it doesn't neither side would be any worse off than we will both be on 1st November.
There is a fundamental difference between a hard border that the EU/Ireland has agreed to, and a hard border that comes about because the UK is delinquent. Such a border would only be a temporary measure until the UK stops behaving like a rogue state or breaks up.
No, there is no difference at all. In my scenario our MPs would have to decide that some piece of deregulation or the nationalisation of various things by a Corbyn style govrnment or something we agreed with the US was worth losing SM access for. I think faced with the reality of that they would never do it but the right to do it should we feel strongly enough about it shows we are independent.
Then the EU would have agreed that the absence of a hard border would permanently depend on the whim of the UK parliament. That is unacceptable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
So be it, but the UK will need to come back to the table, and one of the first things it will need to agree is an equivalent to the backstop to remove the border.
Maybe, maybe not. I tend to agree that if we leave with no deal much of the WA will end up being agreed anyway as it is so clearly in both parties' interests. But there is no guarantee that will include the absence of a hard border. My proposal maintains the status quo, possibly forever.
No it doesn't. Your proposal sets up a permanent game of brinkmanship where the UK can incrementally diverge and keep daring the EU to guillotine our access to the single market and impose a hard border. It's unacceptable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
If we have access to the SM we do have a FTA with the EU. Things would not change except that we would get out of the political crap, control of our immigration and much reduced/no contributions to the EU. It would satisfy most.
It does make you think about the basic fact that we all know really, which is that a whole country only functions on the basis of consent and the stories we tell. When is Parliament in session? When one lady says it is and so we all agree to act like it is. Why can it make laws? Because we all agree to believe it can, and consent to following them.
A flimsy but successful foundation on which democracy rests. What kind of revolutionaries would put this at risk to satisfy an arbitrary date imposed on us by the whims of a moody French president? They must be the opposite of conservatives, surely?
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
If we have access to the SM we do have a FTA with the EU. Things would not change except that we would get out of the political crap, control of our immigration and much reduced/no contributions to the EU. It would satisfy most.
I appear to have misread your argument. I apologise.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
If we have access to the SM we do have a FTA with the EU. Things would not change except that we would get out of the political crap, control of our immigration and much reduced/no contributions to the EU. It would satisfy most.
"Political crap" is the thing that allows frictionless borders.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
If we have access to the SM we do have a FTA with the EU. Things would not change except that we would get out of the political crap, control of our immigration and much reduced/no contributions to the EU. It would satisfy most.
"Political crap" is the thing that allows frictionless borders.
It is no longer possible to take seriously anyone who says “political crap” as it betrays a fundamental ignorance which by now is inexcusable.
Dominic Cummings vs Jeremy Corbyn. Not much of a contest in terms of intellect is it.
Elections are not won by intellect, they are won by empathy. Corbyn is very good at that, with a few obvious exceptions. This was my favourite interview of the 2017 campaign, surprisingly revealing:
And the weekend papers and an SR next week to come. Cummings wants to play the “they are taking process, we are trying to move forward” card.
You don’t beat him with the noise about procedure, you beat him on domestic failings and the impact of no deal (remainers are assuming that’s a given, it’s not).
No we don't have to give it up. You want us to, that's different to having to do so.
How do you view negotiations? You get everything you want? The other side does? This is precisely the problem. If you put your old Remainer hat on you will see that the WA including the backstop is a very sensible best arrangement possible for what is a hugely sensitive issue. Issues, if you include the EU citizens, which as we are seeing is turning into a car crash.
But no - you have got HYUFD disease. Everything is in absolutes. But it needn't be and is not the egregious surrender you think it is. It simply isn't but, as they say there is nothing worse than a reformed smoker/drinker/remainer and I don't expect you to reclaim any of the balance you once had.
I view the WA mainly as a reasonable compromise.
My issue is I have a principled objection to the antidemocratic backstop, principles I have never wavered from and have been entirely consistent with.
If you can't respect that then that's your choice, but it is my view. There are other problems with the WA that I see, a number of them, but on balance they are reasonable compromises. Doesn't mean there can't be lines that can not be crossed and being subject to a Parliament we don't vote for is one for me. My principles for democracy are an absolutely and unwaverable red line that supercedes all others.
Not everything is absolutes. The settlement of money before a trade deal was bad, shouldn't have been agreed but I can live with it. But permanently being subject to someone else's Parliament and having foreign laws we can't change here is an absolute dealbreaker for me.
It would be like if someone said to me they'd give me an amazing job offer with great money, great benefits and all they wanted was to sleep with my wife. No. Money isn't worth that.
No it doesn't. Your proposal sets up a permanent game of brinkmanship where the UK can incrementally diverge and keep daring the EU to guillotine our access to the single market and impose a hard border. It's unacceptable.
Yup, or to incrementally push Ireland to stay converged with the UK, diverge with the rest of the EU and put a border in the Irish Sea between itself and the EU, which is what most of the Brexit enthusiasts really think should be done, although they're too polite to say so.
Since this very much doesn't suit the EU or Ireland, it wouldn't be tactically sensible for them to allow themselves to be salami-sliced in this way, hence their insistence on a non-hand-wavey solution.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
Like flies to shit would be the more accurate description, but I guess you are trying to be charitable.
That is the reality. If the UK Parliament allow us to exit with no deal we will have a hard border in a few weeks time and there is nothing the EU can do to stop it.
And when what? No FTA with the USA. No FTA with the EU. Do you really think @HYUFD’s Working Class will be better off with that? Will they be grateful?
If we have access to the SM we do have a FTA with the EU. Things would not change except that we would get out of the political crap, control of our immigration and much reduced/no contributions to the EU. It would satisfy most.
I appear to have misread your argument. I apologise.
Not at all. I’m grateful people bother to read it at all.
"The deal we need" betrays your fundamental misunderstanding of what negotiation is about.
The UK is behaving like a child shouting "I want, I want".
There - I've solved Brexit. We stay in the SM and hey presto NI issue solved.
Where do I collect my fee?
You seriously think that our negotiating position has not been constantly undermined by a perception that if things are made more difficult then there is every chance that our Parliament will stop Brexit completely? I mean, really?
It reflects no more than
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Indeed.
My ideal scenario would be for the EU to give us full single market access without freedom of movement and a customs union if we wanted it. And no fees.
Best of all possible worlds insofar as all but the most swivel-eyed xenophobic helmets would STFU and we could all get on with our lives, while the price of my roomy north London end of terrace soared.
Chances of it happening? The cube root of Fanny Adams.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
A customs union is probably simpler and cheaper, certainly for now.
How many voters are going to be genuinely outraged if we stayed in a customs union with the EU? Practically none is my guess, I would be surprised if MPs get many green ink letters about the topic.
A customs union is simpler and cheaper I agree.
But its also a dealbreaker and more significantly having to follow other nations laws and regulation without a say in them is one too. So sorry, we need to go for the second-simplest and second-cheapest option.
Is this a real tweet or a spoof ...? Note, having trouble cutting and pasting.
'The car industry’s ‘just in time’ supply chains rely on fluid cross-Channel trade routes. >1,100 trucks filled with car parts cross seamlessly from EU into UK each day. We need to start talks now on how we make sure this flow continues if we leave without a deal.'
Why should Labour support a WA that *could* deliver the kind of Brexit they want if they know that in reality it *won't*? Tory divisions gave them a veto over the WA which they used to try to get the Tories to offer a genuine compromise on Brexit. I don't view that as game playing, they were trying to deliver a better form of Brexit in the national interest. The Tories could have compromised because in a free vote I am sure Labour's version of Brexit would pass. But they refused, because their party would have been broken by it. So one the one hand you have Labour trying to deliver a compromise, versus the Tories who insisted on their version of Brexit even though it didn't enjoy enough support on their own side to pass. And who even now could avoid no deal but are refusing to bend. So yes absolutely it is their fault and not Labour's.
Don't be absurd, there was no way they were going to vote for any deal. Quite apart from anything else May's proposals were indistinguishable from theirs, inasmuch as theirs weren't total nonsense. ("All the benefits of the Single Market").
The plain fact is that Labour teamed up with the ERG to wreck the only smooth transition available, having previously voted for Article 50. That's all you need to know, the rest is spin.
We would know you are right if May had offered a free vote on Labour's deal or even whipped her side to vote for it. Presumably the reason she didn't was that she knew Labour would call her bluff and vote for it too and it would pass, but her party would explode. But she didn't so all either of us can do is suppose. I find my suppositions a lot more plausible than yours, but then I suppose I would, wouldn't I.
We (the whole country) needs to stay within the customs union until such time as we have found a technological solution to the problems presented by a customs border.
And, so long as we are in the customs union, it is democratically valuable to be able to actually have representation in the EU.
Which is to say, the optimal course is to stay in the EU *until* that technological solution is agreed (perhaps by setting a realistic timeline).
All of this nonsense has been caused by the ridiculous idea that we should leave the EU practically overnight.
interesting to speculate if BJ could have got away with it; "It is clear that our European friends are insisting on their technical objections. Well, I say to them- British know-how can develop technical answers. We will develop new ways of controlling a frictionless border, which will render the EU obsolete. I am pleased to announce an endowment of one billion pounds, an investment which will repay itself many times over..." With a withdrawal of Article 50 in Appendix 4.
Would it help if we said it could be called Johnson College Oxford?
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
Undoubtedly there are a significant proportion of Leavers who always wanted No Deal but you really can't deny that the antics of Reversers have driven other less ideological Leavers into the hardline camp. They suspect the campaign to prevent No Deal is really part of the campaign to bury Brexit altogether. The previous hostility of these same reversers to May's deal inevitably fuels their suspicions.
The EU hasn't changed its position in months if not years. What we have done in parliament is irrelevant.
That's simply not true. They agreed, for example, to extend the backstop from NI to the whole of the UK when the DUP objected despite that giving us "free" and unlimited access to the SM. As Richard says they have played with a reasonably straight bat.
But, importantly they held to the principle of the backstop. They gave no ground on it remaining fixed.
Current talks are purely about the PD, there is no re-opening of the WA, as has been repeated many times. I see Bozo has dropped his requirements on the backstop going to re-open talks though.
No they are not. No it isn't being repeated, or you wouldn't need to be offering your 'take'. Remainers need to cling to the EU's imagined intransigence because Boris negotiating a successful deal is their worst nightmare.
As one of @HYUFD's 'diehard Remainers' I'd be very happy if the EU blinked and say dropped the backstop, if that meant we could avoid a No Deal crash.
I just don't see why they would blink though.
Because we give them an alternative that meets the backstop's objective. Let's suppose, hypothetically, we offered some adjudicating body which could review whether any regulatory change was compatible or incompatible with the SM with an option of either side serving notice terminating our access to the SM if it was deemed incompatible. That would do it.
Don't be silly. If you terminate access to the SM then you need a hard border. Your proposal would come nowhere near meeting the objective of the backstop.
Correct. The only way not to have a hard border is through Customs Union. In the WA, in the Northern Ireland context, it has a different name though thanks to the DUP it will apply to the whole of the UK. This is a UK red line, BTW.
Or you enforce customs through other means not at the border. That does the trick too.
I don't know why we're bothering to argue about it tbh.
After all, Boris has a cunning plan... which I am sure he will share with everyone, er, once he has thought it up.
This is all reminiscent of Trump’s “secret” plan to beat ISIS
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
Undoubtedly there are a significant proportion of Leavers who always wanted No Deal but you really can't deny that the antics of Reversers have driven other less ideological Leavers into the hardline camp. Their suspicion is the campaign to prevent No Deal is a campaign to bury Brexit altogether. The previous hostility of much the same people to May's deal fuels their suspicions in that regard.
I do deny it. As I said, it’s tripe.
Brexiters as a class really must stop blaming others for their own collapse into moral squalor.
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
Undoubtedly there are a significant proportion of Leavers who always wanted No Deal but you really can't deny that the antics of Reversers have driven other less ideological Leavers into the hardline camp. Their suspicion is the campaign to prevent No Deal is a campaign to bury Brexit altogether. The previous hostility of much the same people to May's deal fuels their suspicions in that regard.
I do deny it. As I said, it’s tripe.
Brexiters as a class really must stop blaming others for their own collapse into moral squalor.
Your hostility rather supports the point I made in my previous post to this. I suspect a compromise Brexit solution is anathema to you.
In all honesty people get what they deserve this boris Johnson is the equivalent of the nasty disastrous trump in USA no wonder they get on. That in itself with his friends in goverment Conor burns of all people a right wing nasty person himself parading around with boris Johnson permission in south America for deals in trade with a man who has contempt for climate change watching the Amazon burn so his voters mainly farmers can get land for their cattle to sell more abroad including us of course. That's just one instance of his thoughts that when lies come out of his mouth like 350mill a week into our NHS and wanting a deal not no deal with our trade with Europe it's amazing his taken as serious. Even taking credit when mayor of London for the bikes which people forget was Livingstones idea and spending millions on wasteful schemes of his so leaving debt for others to clear up. The similarity with trumps rants and dividing people has left this world so dangerous now. Hopefully the lib dems will become the power in the next not far away election and we see this power crazy boris brushed aside forever . We need sensible politicians to rule not boris or trump in USA who are only interested in themselves in life. Imo
In a decade after EU migration has been brought under control EFTA could be an option but not now to respect the winning Leave campaign
But, but, but, immigration wasn't on the ballot paper, and the campaigns were irrelevant, right?
It was on the Leave posters and the main reason why many usually non voters turned out and voted Leave.
It shows contempt for democracy to fail to deliver what they voted for
Why is giving them - a minority - what they want more important than giving other minorities what they want?
because it suits the Conservative Party and their new bigoted supporters. That’s all he care about.
Brexit started at what the 52% of the voters want, quickly became what the Tory Leavers alone wanted, and now has become what the ERG wing/UKIP/BP want.
We have now reached the point where we have MPs advocating for No Deal, because to them ANY deal is unacceptable. Which is in my opinion completely fucking nuts.
Sorry but you are completely ignoring the role of ultra remainers in the various forms of media and in parliament. Take Matthew Parris although you say the same about any number of other influential reversers he savagely eviscerated May's deal on day one. Leavers have rightly or wrongly coalesced to No Deal as a defence mechanism against the three year campaign against any form of Brexit.
Utter tripe. Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
Undoubtedly there are a significant proportion of Leavers who always wanted No Deal but you really can't deny that the antics of Reversers have driven other less ideological Leavers into the hardline camp. Their suspicion is the campaign to prevent No Deal is a campaign to bury Brexit altogether. The previous hostility of much the same people to May's deal fuels their suspicions in that regard.
I do deny it. As I said, it’s tripe.
Brexiters as a class really must stop blaming others for their own collapse into moral squalor.
Your hostility rather supports the point I made in my previous post to this. I suspect a compromise Brexit solution is anathema to you.
Not really. I called for EFTA after June 2016, and (eventually) supported the WA.
We are in a game of chants. The hoi poloi give the game away (they don't understand the issues) and the media bias supports them in their confusion. All you hear is "No BREXIT" but do they mean "no No Deal" or "Remain". I suspect some the former and some the latter and some are up for the craic. The polls further confuse matters by offering a plethora of confusing questions. Everyone tries to make this an either / or issue when it seems to me that there are at least 3 options in play No Deal (default option)/ Deal/ Remain. In all of these polls it seems to me that the either/ or option is No Deal vs everything else. No surprise there but .....
For the record, I would like us to leave with a deal but I fear that die in a ditch Remainers will fuck that and we will fall back on the default No Deal, which I feel is marginally better than Remain.
Comments
But as we actually discussed at the bloody time, Brexit should be a process, not an event.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/us/politics/next-democratic-debate-candidates.html
Leavers are barking mad, and have been attracted to the most bonkers proposition like wasps to honey.
I heard there was a new proposal recently that breaking Ireland's import rules could be made a crime under British law. Apparently customs experts say, combined with electronic monitoring and pre-checks it is workable. The biggest challenge that remains is live animals, which EU law requires to be inspected before they cross the border and this can not be monitored electronically. Given Ireland is an island and diseases would be contained there anyway, and inspections would happen at the arrival station inside ROI (and therefore before moving on to another EU country) it seems like a simple EU law change to give Ireland an exception could work.
Which Brexit don’t have.
Although it could have, had Brexitry pushed for a soft form from the outset.
FUBAR
https://youtu.be/YZAAy3ndYlA
And the weekend papers and an SR next week to come. Cummings wants to play the “they are taking process, we are trying to move forward” card.
You don’t beat him with the noise about procedure, you beat him on domestic failings and the impact of no deal (remainers are assuming that’s a given, it’s not).
My issue is I have a principled objection to the antidemocratic backstop, principles I have never wavered from and have been entirely consistent with.
If you can't respect that then that's your choice, but it is my view. There are other problems with the WA that I see, a number of them, but on balance they are reasonable compromises. Doesn't mean there can't be lines that can not be crossed and being subject to a Parliament we don't vote for is one for me. My principles for democracy are an absolutely and unwaverable red line that supercedes all others.
Not everything is absolutes. The settlement of money before a trade deal was bad, shouldn't have been agreed but I can live with it. But permanently being subject to someone else's Parliament and having foreign laws we can't change here is an absolute dealbreaker for me.
It would be like if someone said to me they'd give me an amazing job offer with great money, great benefits and all they wanted was to sleep with my wife. No. Money isn't worth that.
Since this very much doesn't suit the EU or Ireland, it wouldn't be tactically sensible for them to allow themselves to be salami-sliced in this way, hence their insistence on a non-hand-wavey solution.
My ideal scenario would be for the EU to give us full single market access without freedom of movement and a customs union if we wanted it. And no fees.
Best of all possible worlds insofar as all but the most swivel-eyed xenophobic helmets would STFU and we could all get on with our lives, while the price of my roomy north London end of terrace soared.
Chances of it happening? The cube root of Fanny Adams.
But its also a dealbreaker and more significantly having to follow other nations laws and regulation without a say in them is one too. So sorry, we need to go for the second-simplest and second-cheapest option.
NEW THREAD
"It is clear that our European friends are insisting on their technical objections. Well, I say to them- British know-how can develop technical answers. We will develop new ways of controlling a frictionless border, which will render the EU obsolete. I am pleased to announce an endowment of one billion pounds, an investment which will repay itself many times over..."
With a withdrawal of Article 50 in Appendix 4.
Would it help if we said it could be called Johnson College Oxford?
As I said, it’s tripe.
Brexiters as a class really must stop blaming others for their own collapse into moral squalor.
I called for EFTA after June 2016, and (eventually) supported the WA.
For the record, I would like us to leave with a deal but I fear that die in a ditch Remainers will fuck that and we will fall back on the default No Deal, which I feel is marginally better than Remain.