We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
If Ireland and Northern Ireland are civilised countries there would be no return to the troubles.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I hope it doesn't come to that. But yes. If terrorists are violent then the blame lies squarely with the terrorists and preserving our democracy is worth the risk of potential terrorism.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
There has never been a group of so rampantly deluded people in the history of this country. A few days ago they were crawling out of their skin in delight that the EU was about to back Boris's "deal" leaving Remainers high and dry. They were whooping with delight at something they had basically convinced themselves about. It went on for a few hours. It's actually pretty fascinating to watch the mass delusion mushroom, spread, wither and rot. Brexit will forever be a case study of speedy credulity, rank gullibility, and idiotic stridency. The bulletproof self confidence of those who keep getting it wrong over and over again is like the herald of a new kind of art entirely: an epic public show of self-gaslighting idiocy. It needs a better name than Brexit. I'll open the bidding at "Manifest Density"
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
If Ireland and Northern Ireland are civilised countries there would be no return to the troubles.
It's a shame you need to say something so obvious.
Even if they’d all voted for it, the Remain MPs elected on a pledge to implement the referendum result, the likes of Heidi Allen, would have made sure it didn’t pass
Maybe, maybe not. Still the ERG voted against Brexit - that's a fact, not speculation.
No, not ‘Maybe, Maybe not’. If the ERG had all had a last minute change of mind and voted for Mays agreement with the EU, it would not have passed.
The likes of Heidi Allen would have looked pretty stupid saying ‘oh well I would have voted for it, but I was second guessing other MPs who I disagree with so voted against’, but that’s by the by.
The third meaningful vote was lost by 58. So if the 28 Spartan pro-Brexit MPs and the 10 DUP Pro-Brexit MPs who voted against it had voted for it, then it would have passed with a majority of 18.
Pro-Brexit MPs prevented Brexit by voting against Brexit.
No, we only had a third vote because the first two didn’t pass you see
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
Pick your preferred disaster.
Which would you pick?
Rereferend, I think. That, or leave with a deal. But the latter, I think, is now politically impossible.
I find a deep contradiction in the remainer position.
If they do eventually succeed in overturning the referendum result before it is implemented they must know that the UK will be an awful and uncooperative member of the EU forever on the periphery. There would be no political gain for any PM to be anything else.
And I assume their deeper wish would be for the UK to be in the centre of the project without the opt-outs, with the Euro etc etc. The only way that will ever happen is if the UK comes out without a deal and their predictions are proved correct. The UK would readily vote to rejoin in those circumstances.
Which leads me to the conclusion that remainers are actually terrified of the UK making a success of leaving, without the sky falling in as predicted and consequently never rejoining.
I don't think that's the case, in the main. For clarity, my trajectory has been voted Remain - assume that Leave = something in the EFTA/EEA/CU spectrum - oh good, TM's a grownup - TM's plan is harder than I'm comfortable with, but tolerable - BJ's plan looks like a joke.
Dave's Deal sealed the UK's position just inside the EU, with lots of opt-outs. A 52:48 result the other way would have meant that nobody would have wanted to touch that for a generation. I don't recall many howls of outrage at the time that the UK wouldn't accelerate towards the centre of the project.
What I'm concerned about is not that leaving will be a success, or that the whole sky will fall in. (Though the impact on some individuals, families and communities may well be horrible). My concern is that life, on the whole, will be less good for quite a while. In large part, that's because our future success depends on good decisions about big questions (opening or closing our society? boosting successful city statelets or supporting struggling towns? higher spending or lower taxes?). At the moment, we have no idea about those, and political parties which show no sign of being able to navigate any sort of path wisely or well.
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
So a handful of unobtrusive customs points would fire up the Troubles would they?
Don't tell me, leavers don't understand the tinderbox waiting to ignite at the sight of even a single customs officer.
It is complete horlicks and just the Brexit equivalent of shroud waving.
It's funny that the same Leavers keep talking about the tinderbox that will ignite if they don't get their Brexit.
No it's not the same at all. We voted for Brexit, a united Ireland has not been voted for.
What would be the reaction if in a border poll a majority voted for Irish unification but then the British government said NI couldn't leave the UK without a backstop that means Northern Ireland continues to follow British laws?
I suspect Irish nationalists would be more angry than British nationalists have been so far.
I find a deep contradiction in the remainer position.
If they do eventually succeed in overturning the referendum result before it is implemented they must know that the UK will be an awful and uncooperative member of the EU forever on the periphery. There would be no political gain for any PM to be anything else.
And I assume their deeper wish would be for the UK to be in the centre of the project without the opt-outs, with the Euro etc etc. The only way that will ever happen is if the UK comes out without a deal and their predictions are proved correct. The UK would readily vote to rejoin in those circumstances.
Which leads me to the conclusion that remainers are actually terrified of the UK making a success of leaving, without the sky falling in as predicted and consequently never rejoining.
You are confused because you insist on dividing people into a false pair of categories. If by 'Remainer' you mean people who voted Remain, then it is totally false to assume they are all people who want to overturn the referendum. Very few of them do, or at least very few of them did, until the nutjobs and careerists who were prominent in Vote Leave and Leave.EU changed their minds and redefined leaving the EU as crashing out in chaos. Unsurprisingly, anyone who voted Remain, and anyone who voted Leave but hasn't lost their marbles, are saying: hang on a sec, we agreed to implement the referendum result, not an economic suicide pact and something disastrous for Northern Ireland and for the union generally.
Of course, you are right that Revoking would be a very bad course, partly for the reasons you give, but if the choice is down to Revoke or Crash Out, then many sensible people will judge that Revoke is the lesser of the two evils.
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
No she wouldn't, not when the British gave details of the talks first.
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
All she has to do is say "we don't recognise these comments". That's the standard procedure. A non denial denial.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
Pick your preferred disaster.
Which would you pick?
Rereferend, I think. That, or leave with a deal. But the latter, I think, is now politically impossible.
Thanks.
I would put leave with a deal first then another referendum but very 50/50 for me.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
That would be an incredible diplomatic victory by Boris.
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
All she has to do is say "we don't recognise these comments". That's the standard procedure. A non denial denial.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
This is high stakes politics now.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
So a handful of unobtrusive customs points would fire up the Troubles would they?
Don't tell me, leavers don't understand the tinderbox waiting to ignite at the sight of even a single customs officer.
It is complete horlicks and just the Brexit equivalent of shroud waving.
It's funny that the same Leavers keep talking about the tinderbox that will ignite if they don't get their Brexit.
No it's not the same at all. We voted for Brexit, a united Ireland has not been voted for.
What would be the reaction if in a border poll a majority voted for Irish unification but then the British government said NI couldn't leave the UK without a backstop that means Northern Ireland continues to follow British laws?
I suspect Irish nationalists would be more angry than British nationalists have been so far.
The people of Northern Ireland voted to Remain. They are also in favour of a Northern Ireland backstop that would have no material affect on the British mainland. They now face economic catastrophe because rightwing English nationalists believe there is electoral advantage in inflicting it on them.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help.
We'd see parliament voting through May's Deal in double-quick time if they did. Compared to the alternatives, that looks like a rather respectable outcome now.
Any attempt to portray Merkel as the villain of the piece is going to lean very heavily on total ignorance of what's gone before.
That's not to say it won't succeed, if Brexiteers are the target audience.
Brexiteers and get it done remain preferrers, get them on board and you have a thumping majority at any election
Vote Revoke and move on from Brexit!
Just ignore the referendum result.
As the government is by attempting to go for no-deal.
No deal is not ignoring the referendum result. It is in accordance with the instructions of the voters who asked that the UK leave the EU. Nor more nor less. Now, the morons who voted for such an outcome and the morons who tried to implement such an outcome are a separate issue but, sadly, especially for those who can least afford it and likely most want it (along with the JRM elite), leaving with no deal would be a perfectly legitimate mode of leaving the EU and it would indeed "honour" the referendum result.
It's impossible to argue with that. Making ourselves poorer, less free, less secure and more dependent on others is undoubtedly a way to leave the EU. That we were told this would not happen by those about to inflict it on us is neither here nor there. What does matter, though, is how the government intends to respond to this new reality. I see no signs that it has even the remotest idea.
I think it is worse than that. Johnson seems as though he is needlessly going to inflict serious harm on the country.
Absolutely. But Johnson's only interest is Johnson. When has he ever cared about anythin else? More puzzling are the many Tories who know how bad all this is going to get but who play along anyway.
So there are two questions.
What will it take for the "We have forebodings but Boris must be given a chance to get a deal" wing to act?
If Boris no-deals, he'll be popular until it goes wrong. What does he do then?
Blame Gove.
It was Gove's job for it not to go wrong.
I assumed that early on- that Gove and Cummings were being set up as the fall guys for a massive reverse ferret ("I was assured that they had matters in hand, but they have let me down. No true patriot could put their scheme into action.."), but DC in particular looks too well embedded in the No 10 operation for that to work.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
That would be an incredible diplomatic victory by Boris.
No Deal is supposed to scare them into offering what he wants. It’s not a victory if they just allow No Deal to happen.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
All she has to do is say "we don't recognise these comments". That's the standard procedure. A non denial denial.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
This is high stakes politics now.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
That would be an incredible diplomatic victory by Boris.
At what point under the Benn Bill / court cases will Johnson feel a tug on his collar from Plod or the Court as he is deemed to be undermining the message of the letter due to be sent on 19th October?
I find a deep contradiction in the remainer position.
If they do eventually succeed in overturning the referendum result before it is implemented they must know that the UK will be an awful and uncooperative member of the EU forever on the periphery. There would be no political gain for any PM to be anything else.
And I assume their deeper wish would be for the UK to be in the centre of the project without the opt-outs, with the Euro etc etc. The only way that will ever happen is if the UK comes out without a deal and their predictions are proved correct. The UK would readily vote to rejoin in those circumstances.
Which leads me to the conclusion that remainers are actually terrified of the UK making a success of leaving, without the sky falling in as predicted and consequently never rejoining.
I don't think that rejoining after economic pain of leaving is all that likely for several reasons: pride, the likelihood that the EU will be blamed by some for the economic difficulties, the desire not to experience more upheaval, the cowardice of politicians not making the case for the Euro, etc.
I think that, once we leave, we will be out for good, however we leave.
It's one of the reasons I'm so mystified that Leavers in Parliament voted against any form of Brexit.
The funniest thing in all this will be the look on Boris's face if he's genuinely mistaken the undoubted *depth* of Hard Leave passion for its breadth.
If he ends up going to the wall for something it turns out about 20 per cent of the population actively want, (plus another 20 who quietly want him to do The Right Thing Now and 20 per cent who voted Leave after tossing a coin or reading the Express), this will be the biggest political miscalculation since Ed Miliband thought "I know.. I'd really like a bloody big gravestone as an electioneering stunt".
More seriously, whoever made this should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help.
We'd see parliament voting through May's Deal in double-quick time if they did. Compared to the alternatives, that looks like a rather respectable outcome now.
With the government whipping against this time? And all the opposition whipping in favour?
Can't see it personally. Would be interesting to see the SNP, LDs, Grieve etc suddenly explain why they're voting now for May's Deal. Not going to happen.
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
All she has to do is say "we don't recognise these comments". That's the standard procedure. A non denial denial.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
This is high stakes politics now.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
Johnson wants to win a general election. What he has done today makes that more likely. So it is a smart move. I am very happy to accept that.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Which is what the Government proposed. But the EU looked at the concept of consent with abject horror.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Which is what the Government proposed. But the EU looked at the concept of consent with abject horror.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
Firstly, Northern Ireland is not being offered a choice right now. It's moving into the Boris Backstop, which is (according to opinion polls) significantly less popular than the old Backstop in the Province. A fairer options, surely, would be to offer them a choice between the Boris Backstop and the EU one.
Secondly, the EU has not rejected the consent element, it's rejected the Boris Backstop as failing to meet the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I have some sympathy with both sides here. But it is clearly incorrect to state that it was the issue of consent that was the problem.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
That would be an incredible diplomatic victory by Boris.
At what point under the Benn Bill / court cases will Johnson feel a tug on his collar from Plod or the Court as he is deemed to be undermining the message of the letter due to be sent on 19th October?
Never.
Undermining a message is not illegal. Also a politician being able to have free speech isn't illegal either. In fact if the Benn Act prevented Boris from saying what he wanted to say then that would surely violate his right to free speech and free assembly, it would surely thus violate the Human Rights Act and thus the law would be illegal.
It is worth remembering that while it is said that no law in this country can be illegal, actually doesn't the Human Rights Act specify that if a law violates the HRA then the HRA takes priority and the contravening law is invalid? Parliament could override that by repealing the HRA but that might go a bit far even for the Remoaner Alliance!!
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
If the Germans came out and said Johnson is lying here is the transcript... then she'd be criticised for leaking private talks and accused of negotiating in bad faith etc.
All she has to do is say "we don't recognise these comments". That's the standard procedure. A non denial denial.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
This is high stakes politics now.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
Johnson wants to win a general election. What he has done today makes that more likely. So it is a smart move. I am very hapy to accept that.
Why do you not accept that Merkel might, on the evidence we have in front of us, have genuinely said something blunt, clumsy, and forthright?
It is in keeping with her character. She can be quite cold, and overly analytical when she wants. She is also a scientist: she sees things logically. And the description of her words does give the impression of someone giving a brutally logical and politically unfortunate exposition of the EU's point of view.
I can see how it might have happened, too. I imagine Boris was full of bonhomie and bluster, and then Merkel got bored of it, and set him straight, but she did it in a rather maladroit and Germanic way.
Bob's your German uncle. There's your catastrophic phone-call. No need for further conspiracies, on either side.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
Ahem. As I have been saying - to considerable opprobrium on here - there is no incentive for the EU to give a further extension. They get it sorted by end October.
And there had been zero chance of our MPs going for No Deal. Well, until Mutti put her foot in it and basically confirmed that May's Shit Deal really IS a trap..... That has, er, complicated the domestic assessment some.
With the government whipping against this time? And all the opposition whipping in favour?
Can't see it personally. Would be interesting to see the SNP, LDs, Grieve etc suddenly explain why they're voting now for May's Deal. Not going to happen.
It'd be easy for them, since it'd be that or no-deal at the end of the month - anyone voting against would explicitly be voting for no-deal. As for the govt's position, it'd be PM Ken Clarke pushing it through.
Anyway, yes it's unlikely - I think it's more likely if the EU gets frustrated it'd go for a really long extension, 2 or 3 years.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
Ahem. As I have been saying - to considerable opprobrium on here - there is no incentive for the EU to give a further extension. They get it sorted by end October.
And there had been zero chance of our MPs going for No Deal. Well, until Mutti put her foot in it and basically confirmed that May's Shit Deal really IS a trap..... That has, er, complicated the domestic assessment some.
There is an incentive... the biggest of the lot. An extra £1-billion income per month.
No EU politician, however badly disposed towards the UK, would turn their nose up at that.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
Johnson wants to win a general election. What he has done today makes that more likely. So it is a smart move. I am very hapy to accept that.
Why do you not accept that Merkel might, on the evidence we have in front of us, have genuinely said something blunt, clumsy, and forthright?
It is in keeping with her character. She can be quite cold, and overly analytical when she wants. She is also a scientist: she sees things logically. And the description of her words does give the impression of someone giving a brutally logical and politically unfortunate exposition of the EU's point of view.
I can see how it might have happened, too. I imagine Boris was full of bonhomie and bluster, and then Merkel got bored of it, and set him straight, but she did it in a rather maladroit and Germanic way.
Bob's your German uncle. There's your catastrophic phone-call. No need for further conspiracies, on either side.
On the one hand, we have a woman who in nearly 20 years in the public eye has said nothing interesting and whose name has been turned into a verb in Germany meaning "to dither until an option becomes inevitable". And on the other hand, we have two wild, erratic figures, neither of whom has a particularly close relationship with the truth and both of whom have vivid turns of phrase.
Turns out the American public are not happy with the idea of a president using his power to try to subvert a forthcoming election. Almost as though they value free and fair elections. Who would have thunk?
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
Ahem. As I have been saying - to considerable opprobrium on here - there is no incentive for the EU to give a further extension. They get it sorted by end October.
And there had been zero chance of our MPs going for No Deal. Well, until Mutti put her foot in it and basically confirmed that May's Shit Deal really IS a trap..... That has, er, complicated the domestic assessment some.
There is an incentive... the biggest of the lot. An extra £1-billion income per month.
No EU politician, however badly disposed towards the UK, would turn their nose up at that.
Remainers keep telling us a billion a monh is chicken feed to the EU.....
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
There is an incentive... the biggest of the lot. An extra £1-billion income per month.
No EU politician, however badly disposed towards the UK, would turn their nose up at that.
I can't imagine the financial aspect is the primary (or even secondary) priority for the EU now.
There comes a point where they will realise that the process has become so poisonous that not granting the extension is the 'least bad' option.
The UK leaving will lance the worst of the boil and allow a brief reset before negotiations can commence that aren't being skewed by the possibility of the referendum result being overturned.
I would think the EU are pretty angry at the advice given by the UK remainer political elite to make Brexit as difficult as possible.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
Johnson wants to win a general election. What he has done today makes that more likely. So it is a smart move. I am very hapy to accept that.
Why do you not accept that Merkel might, on the evidence we have in front of us, have genuinely said something blunt, clumsy, and forthright?
It is in keeping with her character. She can be quite cold, and overly analytical when she wants. She is also a scientist: she sees things logically. And the description of her words does give the impression of someone giving a brutally logical and politically unfortunate exposition of the EU's point of view.
I can see how it might have happened, too. I imagine Boris was full of bonhomie and bluster, and then Merkel got bored of it, and set him straight, but she did it in a rather maladroit and Germanic way.
Bob's your German uncle. There's your catastrophic phone-call. No need for further conspiracies, on either side.
On the one hand, we have a woman who in nearly 20 years in the public eye has said nothing interesting and whose name has been turned into a verb in Germany meaning "to dither until an option becomes inevitable". And on the other hand, we have two wild, erratic figures, neither of whom has a particularly close relationship with the truth and both of whom have vivid turns of phrase.
Hmm, I wonder what happened here?
Merkel has said nothing interesting? It was her words that triggered an escalation of the migration crisis just prior to the referendum.
Or it suggests that she understands there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced.
There is literally nothing that can convince true believers like you that the EU can occasionally do something wrong/dangerous/silly/unflattering/ignoble, and literally nothing that can convince you Brexit Boris might, for once, do something right/clever/intelligent/principled/fair etc etc
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
Johnson wants to win a general election. What he has done today makes that more likely. So it is a smart move. I am very hapy to accept that.
Why do you not accept that Merkel might, on the evidence we have in front of us, have genuinely said something blunt, clumsy, and forthright?
It is in keeping with her character. She can be quite cold, and overly analytical when she wants. She is also a scientist: she sees things logically. And the description of her words does give the impression of someone giving a brutally logical and politically unfortunate exposition of the EU's point of view.
I can see how it might have happened, too. I imagine Boris was full of bonhomie and bluster, and then Merkel got bored of it, and set him straight, but she did it in a rather maladroit and Germanic way.
Bob's your German uncle. There's your catastrophic phone-call. No need for further conspiracies, on either side.
On the one hand, we have a woman who in nearly 20 years in the public eye has said nothing interesting and whose name has been turned into a verb in Germany meaning "to dither until an option becomes inevitable". And on the other hand, we have two wild, erratic figures, neither of whom has a particularly close relationship with the truth and both of whom have vivid turns of phrase.
Hmm, I wonder what happened here?
Very sadly. Merkel might have Parkinsons, or something like it.
Whatever the case, the German media, in its polite way. is full of speculation about her waning powers and erratic judgement.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
Pick your preferred disaster.
Which would you pick?
Rereferend, I think. That, or leave with a deal. But the latter, I think, is now politically impossible.
Thanks.
I would put leave with a deal first then another referendum but very 50/50 for me.
Either would do.
But what a mess.
Revoke then start the process for EEA and tell electorate that a planned, managed a d non damaging Brexit is being organised.
The Loons will howl, a lot of Remainers will probably accept it and the bulk of the population will just get on with their lives
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Which is what the Government proposed. But the EU looked at the concept of consent with abject horror.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
Firstly, Northern Ireland is not being offered a choice right now. It's moving into the Boris Backstop, which is (according to opinion polls) significantly less popular than the old Backstop in the Province. A fairer options, surely, would be to offer them a choice between the Boris Backstop and the EU one.
Secondly, the EU has not rejected the consent element, it's rejected the Boris Backstop as failing to meet the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I have some sympathy with both sides here. But it is clearly incorrect to state that it was the issue of consent that was the problem.
It was certainly one of the issues.
They characterised it as a "veto" for the DUP
What they meant to say is that "of course, under the GDA, we recognise that there is a process by which one of the two communities can express a fundamental concern about an action and thereby prevent it occuring. As part of a delicate balancing act in a very difficult situation we can understand the importance of allowing both communities this ability because it would be very disruptive to force a minority into a situation without their consent"
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
Politically, disagreers torn in twain between Labour, LibDem, Green, SNP, Plaid.
42% for Boris at the GE against divided opposition will give him a thumping majority.
If the EU refuses an extension and we leave with no deal on 31st the country will place the blame exactly where it deserves to go. Whether the destruction of Johnson and his whole rotten team is just retribution for the damage he and his mates have caused will be debated for generations to come.
The best thing that could come out of the EU summit is confirmation of no further extensions.
Boris would say that the political declaration was dead. They'd go whatever - the rest of it is May's WA. Take it or leave it - let us know what you've decided.
We then have a very fiery session or two in the Commons where they decide whether to walk into the EU trap or No Deal. (Or revoke, but very few will have the appetite for that and will be drowned out.) The polling will support No Deal. But MPs will sign up to the EU trap.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
Pick your preferred disaster.
Which would you pick?
Rereferend, I think. That, or leave with a deal. But the latter, I think, is now politically impossible.
Thanks.
I would put leave with a deal first then another referendum but very 50/50 for me.
Either would do.
But what a mess.
Revoke then start the process for EEA and tell electorate that a planned, managed a d non damaging Brexit is being organised.
The Loons will howl, a lot of Remainers will probably accept it and the bulk of the population will just get on with their lives
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
Mrs C, if a pro-EU Commons manages to achieve revocation I think there's very, very little chance they'll do anything other than stay in the EU (and probably try to integrate us more rapidly so leaving is even more difficult in the future).
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
You sound very well informed. Were you on the call?
Interesting to note that the projected number of Liberal seats has dropped by about 10 despite their share remaining the same as a couple of days ago. Maybe the model has been updated since then.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
How odd, then, that the EU has been desperately trying to distance itself from Frau Merkel's remarks, ever since.
Mrs C, if a pro-EU Commons manages to achieve revocation I think there's very, very little chance they'll do anything other than stay in the EU (and probably try to integrate us more rapidly so leaving is even more difficult in the future).
If the Commons revokes without a referendum expect the Tories to campaign on an immediate exit via revoking the European Communities Act 1972 - no invoking of Article 50 a second time.
Revoke: democratically disastrous Rereferend: highly divisive and a recognition of failure by the political class Leave with a deal: discredited Leave without a deal: highly disruptive, chaotic and highly divisive.
Mrs C, if a pro-EU Commons manages to achieve revocation I think there's very, very little chance they'll do anything other than stay in the EU (and probably try to integrate us more rapidly so leaving is even more difficult in the future).
If the Commons revokes without a referendum expect the Tories to campaign on an immediate exit via revoking the European Communities Act 1972 - no invoking of Article 50 a second time.
They've always had every right to do exactly that.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
You sound very well informed. Were you on the call?
Matthias wants us to believe, IIRC, that he is a humble condom vending machine repair man, from a small town near Stuttgart.
I have my doubts. BUT he is a valuable asset to the site, and very articulate in his second language, so I say Wilkommen to him, as it is part of our Kultur.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
People are doubling down because the result has not been implemented
Take your point, however I do not like the sound of that 'doubling down'. It implies that these types will be only half as racist when we leave - which would still be quite racist. That is something - don't get me wrong - but this is a low bar we are setting for ourselves here.
Mrs C, if a pro-EU Commons manages to achieve revocation I think there's very, very little chance they'll do anything other than stay in the EU (and probably try to integrate us more rapidly so leaving is even more difficult in the future).
If the Commons revokes without a referendum expect the Tories to campaign on an immediate exit via revoking the European Communities Act 1972 - no invoking of Article 50 a second time.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
I wonder if, in their desperation, MPs might vote for a new referendum, during that short interregnum.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
How odd, then, that the EU has been desperately trying to distance itself from Frau Merkel's remarks, ever since.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
I wonder if, in their desperation, MPs might vote for a new referendum, during that short interregnum.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
What would it achieve? The Tories would immediately stand on a manifesto of Leave, for the next and all future elections. And Remainers can't complain because the Lib Dems have legitimized it.
I am increasingly of the view that the EU will refuse an extension on the grounds that we are a flaming nuisance and couldn't put our own socks on without help. So best to leave us to it and concentrate on helping Ireland.
That's wishful thinking. They too love kicking the can. If they wanted to avoid the nuisance theyd not offer an extension, and it would be helpful all around, but their actions to date suggest they'll play for time and hope an election resolves things in their favour.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
If we ended up with PM Bercow, I can imagine him rolling up at an EU Council meeting, and surprising everyone by revoking - the excuse being "a pause to think", or something similar. It's what he's been working for the last couple of years, so it'd be in character.
Which is what the Government proposed. But the EU looked at the concept of consent with abject horror.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
Firstly, Northern Ireland is not being offered a choice right now. It's moving into the Boris Backstop, which is (according to opinion polls) significantly less popular than the old Backstop in the Province. A fairer options, surely, would be to offer them a choice between the Boris Backstop and the EU one.
Secondly, the EU has not rejected the consent element, it's rejected the Boris Backstop as failing to meet the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I have some sympathy with both sides here. But it is clearly incorrect to state that it was the issue of consent that was the problem.
It was certainly one of the issues.
They characterised it as a "veto" for the DUP
What they meant to say is that "of course, under the GDA, we recognise that there is a process by which one of the two communities can express a fundamental concern about an action and thereby prevent it occuring. As part of a delicate balancing act in a very difficult situation we can understand the importance of allowing both communities this ability because it would be very disruptive to force a minority into a situation without their consent"
It was set-up as a veto for the DUP. It could have been set-up in the opposite way, to give Sinn Fein a veto on NI exiting the backstop arrangements, rather than the DUP a veto on continuing the arrangements.
I can see why either side would be upset at the other being given the veto.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
I wonder if, in their desperation, MPs might vote for a new referendum, during that short interregnum.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
I think it's the only way out - anything else means MPs need to take responsibility for their actions.
Which sounds worse than it really is as a referendum should only be overridden by a second referendum especially as the 2 options that still remain (revoke / No Deal) aren't the same as the managed leave the leave campaign promised us.
On the one hand people defend Merkels alleged comments as basically true, others attack the reporting of them as untrue. Which is a pretty good indication that the thrust of the words is as reported, just the tone is not how Merkel put it.
We are finally getting to the point where we realise that Brexit is undeliverable as long as Ireland remains divided. General Election and Revoke.
No. Ireland being divided isn't a problem, Parliament being divided is.
If Boris comes back with a thumping majority the quislings sabotaging the UKs negotiations become impotent. He can and should then say to Varadkar and von der Leyden (sp?) it is time for the EU and UK to speak as equals or where shall the customs border posts be built on the Irish border?
Is Brexit really worth the reurn of the Troubles for the next thirty years. Bombs in London, Birmingham etc.
I think you need to turn the question around: "Is it worth giving terrorists a veto over a democratic vote?"
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
Not only 'a say' but the final, decisive say.
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future. The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
How odd, then, that the EU has been desperately trying to distance itself from Frau Merkel's remarks, ever since.
Hang on, I thought the EU agreed to work to find a sensible permanent solution to the challenge of the customs border in NI back in March, and the backstop was just a backstop.
Turns out it was just the answer, fullstop, all along?
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
I wonder if, in their desperation, MPs might vote for a new referendum, during that short interregnum.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
I think it's the only way out - anything else means MPs need to take responsibility for their actions.
Which sounds worse than it really is as a referendum should only be overridden by a second referendum especially as the 2 options that still remain (revoke / No Deal) aren't the same as the managed leave the leave campaign promised us.
I can't see it happening. there's no majority in the commons for a referendum and once a new tory government comes in they will stop it.
Most likely if the EU does not agree a new Deal by October 19th at the EU council Boris loses a VONC the subsequent week, then either MPs approve a new PM within 14 days, probably Bercow, to extend, then vote for an election or no new PM is agreed and there is a general election anyway
I wonder if, in their desperation, MPs might vote for a new referendum, during that short interregnum.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
Only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes
Comments
https://twitter.com/philipoltermann/status/1181575323655258112?s=20
They seem to have forgotten Juncker and Selmayr leaking all over the shop, after the "disastrous" dinner in Whitehall.
Brexit is being played by amateurs, against amateurs.
👏
https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1154286327699005440
Dave's Deal sealed the UK's position just inside the EU, with lots of opt-outs. A 52:48 result the other way would have meant that nobody would have wanted to touch that for a generation. I don't recall many howls of outrage at the time that the UK wouldn't accelerate towards the centre of the project.
What I'm concerned about is not that leaving will be a success, or that the whole sky will fall in. (Though the impact on some individuals, families and communities may well be horrible). My concern is that life, on the whole, will be less good for quite a while. In large part, that's because our future success depends on good decisions about big questions (opening or closing our society? boosting successful city statelets or supporting struggling towns? higher spending or lower taxes?). At the moment, we have no idea about those, and political parties which show no sign of being able to navigate any sort of path wisely or well.
What would be the reaction if in a border poll a majority voted for Irish unification but then the British government said NI couldn't leave the UK without a backstop that means Northern Ireland continues to follow British laws?
I suspect Irish nationalists would be more angry than British nationalists have been so far.
Of course, you are right that Revoking would be a very bad course, partly for the reasons you give, but if the choice is down to Revoke or Crash Out, then many sensible people will judge that Revoke is the lesser of the two evils.
Of interest is the complete fall in sales over the past 10 weeks which I've seen elsewhere.
The fact Merkel's office hasn't even gone THAT far suggests that she pretty much said what is alleged, and that the Krauts (TM) are worried the Brits have a transcript and a recording (highly likely) and if that then leaked out she might entirely get the blame for No Deal, should that happen.
This is high stakes politics now.
A national torn in Twain
I would put leave with a deal first then another referendum but very 50/50 for me.
Either would do.
But what a mess.
People are worried. In the end Project Fear might come true because, paradoxically, Brexit hasn't happened.
And why shouldn't the UK Prime Minister make his country aware that the EU wants to annex part of our country?
It's an incredibly hostile and aggresive act.
On the other hand, in the various declarations about the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised a degree of self determination unmatched by any other part of the UK. Its seems that walking away from that because of majority vote in the rest of the United Kingdom is asking for trouble.
It therefore makes sense that Northern Ireland actually get a say here.
And then you have the lack-of-self-awareness to write this:
"there is absolutely no point in seeking to convince people who do not want to be convinced."
lol
I think that, once we leave, we will be out for good, however we leave.
It's one of the reasons I'm so mystified that Leavers in Parliament voted against any form of Brexit.
If he ends up going to the wall for something it turns out about 20 per cent of the population actively want, (plus another 20 who quietly want him to do The Right Thing Now and 20 per cent who voted Leave after tossing a coin or reading the Express), this will be the biggest political miscalculation since Ed Miliband thought "I know.. I'd really like a bloody big gravestone as an electioneering stunt".
More seriously, whoever made this should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting.
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1181542541583273985?s=20
Can't see it personally. Would be interesting to see the SNP, LDs, Grieve etc suddenly explain why they're voting now for May's Deal. Not going to happen.
42% for Boris at the GE against divided opposition will give him a thumping majority.
Firstly, Northern Ireland is not being offered a choice right now. It's moving into the Boris Backstop, which is (according to opinion polls) significantly less popular than the old Backstop in the Province. A fairer options, surely, would be to offer them a choice between the Boris Backstop and the EU one.
Secondly, the EU has not rejected the consent element, it's rejected the Boris Backstop as failing to meet the requirements of the Good Friday Agreement. Now, I have some sympathy with both sides here. But it is clearly incorrect to state that it was the issue of consent that was the problem.
Undermining a message is not illegal. Also a politician being able to have free speech isn't illegal either. In fact if the Benn Act prevented Boris from saying what he wanted to say then that would surely violate his right to free speech and free assembly, it would surely thus violate the Human Rights Act and thus the law would be illegal.
It is worth remembering that while it is said that no law in this country can be illegal, actually doesn't the Human Rights Act specify that if a law violates the HRA then the HRA takes priority and the contravening law is invalid? Parliament could override that by repealing the HRA but that might go a bit far even for the Remoaner Alliance!!
It is in keeping with her character. She can be quite cold, and overly analytical when she wants. She is also a scientist: she sees things logically. And the description of her words does give the impression of someone giving a brutally logical and politically unfortunate exposition of the EU's point of view.
I can see how it might have happened, too. I imagine Boris was full of bonhomie and bluster, and then Merkel got bored of it, and set him straight, but she did it in a rather maladroit and Germanic way.
Bob's your German uncle. There's your catastrophic phone-call. No need for further conspiracies, on either side.
Well done Guido for the story all the papers turned down.
And there had been zero chance of our MPs going for No Deal. Well, until Mutti put her foot in it and basically confirmed that May's Shit Deal really IS a trap..... That has, er, complicated the domestic assessment some.
https://twitter.com/NumbersMuncher/status/1181542760739934208?s=19
Anyway, yes it's unlikely - I think it's more likely if the EU gets frustrated it'd go for a really long extension, 2 or 3 years.
No EU politician, however badly disposed towards the UK, would turn their nose up at that.
Hmm, I wonder what happened here?
* Delete as appropriate
There comes a point where they will realise that the process has become so poisonous that not granting the extension is the 'least bad' option.
The UK leaving will lance the worst of the boil and allow a brief reset before negotiations can commence that aren't being skewed by the possibility of the referendum result being overturned.
I would think the EU are pretty angry at the advice given by the UK remainer political elite to make Brexit as difficult as possible.
"I find it rather dry and prefer chicken"
"We usually have a goose"
Whatever the case, the German media, in its polite way. is full of speculation about her waning powers and erratic judgement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-trembling-germany.html
Slightly losing her rag with the annoying Boris Johnson would be entirely consonant with that.
Laters...
There’s not been an official readout so some undisclosed source means bugger all.
The Loons will howl, a lot of Remainers will probably accept it and the bulk of the population will just get on with their lives
They characterised it as a "veto" for the DUP
What they meant to say is that "of course, under the GDA, we recognise that there is a process by which one of the two communities can express a fundamental concern about an action and thereby prevent it occuring. As part of a delicate balancing act in a very difficult situation we can understand the importance of allowing both communities this ability because it would be very disruptive to force a minority into a situation without their consent"
Chancellor Merkel pointed out calmly, politely and correctly in her morning call that the crucial question always was and still is the question of regulatory and customs alignment of NI. Everything pivots around that.
This question is of such vital importance that it should be answered by the people who are so immensely and immediately affected by the consequences. This question can not be meaningfully answered by the EU or Great Britain.
The whole Brexit saga was started by an act of direct democracy, and where we are now, another act of direct democracy is required to deliver at least a modicum of closure. The only pathway to a economically, socially and politically stable prospectus for NI is a basic, foundational act of direct democracy by the people of NI, and NI only.
There is no satisfactory, workable alternative to a plebiscite in NI on its own future.
The people of NI must have the final and decisive say.
Leave voters break 77% to 11% in favour of leaving with no deal, with 12% DK.
Remain voters split 15% to 68% with 18% DK.
Boris would say that the political declaration was dead. They'd go whatever - the rest of it is May's WA. Take it or leave it - let us know what you've decided.
We then have a very fiery session or two in the Commons where they decide whether to walk into the EU trap or No Deal. (Or revoke, but very few will have the appetite for that and will be drowned out.) The polling will support No Deal. But MPs will sign up to the EU trap.
https://mobile.twitter.com/clarey_11/status/1181595487427858438
Conservatives 139
BQ 21
NDP 20
On the new projection therefore Trudeau loses his majority but stays leader of the largest party and PM with NDP and BQ support
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1181557758908420096?s=20
I have my doubts. BUT he is a valuable asset to the site, and very articulate in his second language, so I say Wilkommen to him, as it is part of our Kultur.
And, heck, they might be right. Perhaps a 2nd vote is the only way out, unhappy as that would be.
I can see why either side would be upset at the other being given the veto.
Which sounds worse than it really is as a referendum should only be overridden by a second referendum especially as the 2 options that still remain (revoke / No Deal) aren't the same as the managed leave the leave campaign promised us.
Turns out it was just the answer, fullstop, all along?
In which case: bad faith.