Looks like the EU are on board by not allowing more time
Well, that's the LibDems buggered then.
"The battle to rejoin starts here!"
"You, er, got any other policies?"
"Um...the battle to rejoin starts here!"
Their electoral argument is quite clear. A relatively hard Brexit like this enables the twin extremes of British politics, to which they provide an alternative.
Their "alternative" has been to over-ride the 17.4m who voted for Brexit.
How very Liberal, how very Democratic.....
Yawn. They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis.
Some of them did, the ones people have heard of... didn't.
stodge says: "Boris has handed the EU a huge victory. Dropping the backstop in favour of a border in the Irish Sea is exactly what the EU wanted originally so they have enthusiastically signed up to it."
Boris has put Brexit before 31/10 ahead of the Union. Shame.
Boris has put Boris before every other consideration. That should not be a surprise.
Nonsense spin. Northern Ireland has the most privileged position in the UK now. It will get the benefits of both frictionless access to the single market AND tariff reductions from UK trade deals AND a big package of aid from UK/ROI/EU AND the choice to leave every four years. Northern Ireland would be mad to leave the union now.
They didn't concede everything. They got the level playing field excluded from the WA, a NI decision on the arrangements every four years, and the whole UK outside the Customs Union and benefitting from trade deals.
All of which, except for the Stormont agreement bit (which could probably have been agreed two years ago), was in the EU's original proposal for how to deal with the Irish border issue, which Boris rejected at the time because it requires some customs checks in the Irish Sea.
But, hey, I don't mind. This is theatre (a farce, as it happens) designed to con the ERGers into voting for exactly what they previously railed against. If Boris can bring off that betrayal without losing too many of them, then great. If he can bring it off whilst also ridding the party of a few of the more bonkers ones, then even better.
I'd tend to agree with you, Richard. Though I think the NI part of the agreement considerably messier than the May deal, and that could have consequences.
Yes, it is a slightly worse deal than the old one. Too complex on NI, and not enough to protect UK industry in the political declaration. But the latter is of course potentially up for change later when we get down to the serious discussions.
Given the irony so far shown by the scriptwriter of our reality, what are the odds that Juncker's statement (however it can be interpreted) re-emboldens the ERG Spartans who suddenly see, at the eleventh hour, the possibility for a glorious "clean break" Brexit on the horizon...
That'd just lead to Parliament revoking.
Surely they wouldn't be so stupid? The likes of Mark Franc … oh, wait.
Given the irony so far shown by the scriptwriter of our reality, what are the odds that Juncker's statement (however it can be interpreted) re-emboldens the ERG Spartans who suddenly see, at the eleventh hour, the possibility for a glorious "clean break" Brexit on the horizon...
What are the reasons for Labour opposing the deal?
Varies I'd say. Some are remainers who can't/won't accept the result. Others are tribal and won't support any deal negotiated by Boris. Corbyn's plan I think has been to string the whole thing out as long as possible to try and force an election but this far that hasn't worked.
And now he'll get his election, but on around 20% in the polls......
Looks like the EU are on board by not allowing more time
Well, that's the LibDems buggered then.
"The battle to rejoin starts here!"
"You, er, got any other policies?"
"Um...the battle to rejoin starts here!"
Their electoral argument is quite clear. A relatively hard Brexit like this enables the twin extremes of British politics, to which they provide an alternative.
Their "alternative" has been to over-ride the 17.4m who voted for Brexit.
How very Liberal, how very Democratic.....
Yawn. They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis.
Some of them did, the ones people have heard of... didn't.
It was in the manifesto.
It wasn't in Heidi Allen's, or Chuka Umunna's, or Sarah Wollastons, or Angela Smith's...
No, it wasn't. The original EU proposal had Northern Ireland fully in the customs union (no benefit from UK tariff reductions), the single market (not just agrifood/industrial products) and tax system (not just goods). It also had level playing field in the WA.
Those differences are just fudge laid over the fundamentals. If the UK wants to put in place a complex system for NI businesses to reclaim some tariff differences (if there are any eventually, which I doubt), then it's no big deal to the EU, is it?
Yes, it is. It makes NI potentially way more competitive than ROI. Lower taxes on goods and lower regulation on services. The EU has moved a lot. Varadkar deserves a lot of credit.
Re: An election. It’s simple isn’t it? Absent EU issues, a VONC means an election, since we know Corbyn doesn’t command a majority. The QS or the Budget will lead to an opportunity to call one (Boris can allow the SNP or LibDems to table one).
Therefore, if there is a deal we’ll have an election, but if it’s over the Budget rather than the QS then it has to be next year. A VONC after losing the QS might just about still mean first week of Dec.
Edit - assuming Corbyn would not just whip for the 2/3 and back his campaigning.
If deal goes through why would any of the opposition parties go for an early election, leave Johnson where he is where he can’t do anymore harm and see how it goes.
They can’t see a Budget fall and then not no confidence him. They’d look ridiculous.
stodge says: "Boris has handed the EU a huge victory. Dropping the backstop in favour of a border in the Irish Sea is exactly what the EU wanted originally so they have enthusiastically signed up to it."
Boris has put Brexit before 31/10 ahead of the Union. Shame.
Boris has put Boris before every other consideration. That should not be a surprise.
At some point, reality means this bollocks of "Boris only thinks of Boris" will end. He has thought of 17.4m. He has thought of democracy. Which is more than many in Westminster have done, especially on the Labour side.
One of the things that made it difficult for May to sell a deal was that days like today tended to be marred by a resignation, which immediately put the focus onto opposition to whatever progress had been achieved.
Not even a whisper of a resignation so far today. That's an interesting diagnostic of the prospects for Johnson's deal.
First: to be completed in terms of the Benn Act the agreement must be completed in terms of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty which means the EU Parliament must okay it - and they aren't sitting until 21 October.
"(1) It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain."
"(2) For the purposes of this section “customs territory” shall have the same meaning as in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1947 as amended."
So that would have to be repealed by Parliament, which is possible but unlikely. In any case, the first impediment remains.
It's Extension, hold a 3rd ref or a GE before 31 Oct, Revoke or civil war (in decreasing order of probability).
And if on Saturday Boris reads out a letter from Juncker that says "The 27 heads of state are aware of the provisions of the Benn Act. However, having discussed the matter, the unanimous view is that even if such a request for an extension is received, no further extension will be granted, to 31st January or any other date."
Boris's tanks will just have driven round the Maginot Line.......
But even if the EU were to say something along those lines, there would be no reason to believe they would stick to that view. How many times did it repeat that May's WA was not going to be re-opened. Pragmatic real politics would intervene were there to be a change of UK government.
No, I think the balance of probabilities is that they would reject a further extension. Of course, its essentially unknowable for sure what they would do until they were faced with the decision. But it does mean that the opposition rejecting the deal are forced to contemplate the possibility of either No Deal or revoke.
If an election were called as a result of the Deal dailing to clear Parliament, it seems unlikely that an extension would be refused to allow the election to be held.
Re: An election. It’s simple isn’t it? Absent EU issues, a VONC means an election, since we know Corbyn doesn’t command a majority. The QS or the Budget will lead to an opportunity to call one (Boris can allow the SNP or LibDems to table one).
Therefore, if there is a deal we’ll have an election, but if it’s over the Budget rather than the QS then it has to be next year. A VONC after losing the QS might just about still mean first week of Dec.
Edit - assuming Corbyn would not just whip for the 2/3 and back his campaigning.
If deal goes through why would any of the opposition parties go for an early election, leave Johnson where he is where he can’t do anymore harm and see how it goes.
It's only Labour that don't want an election. An amendment of the FTPA allowing a GE could get through on a simple majority. SNP, LibDems happy to oblige......
And if on Saturday Boris reads out a letter from Juncker that says "The 27 heads of state are aware of the provisions of the Benn Act. However, having discussed the matter, the unanimous view is that even if such a request for an extension is received, no further extension will be granted, to 31st January or any other date."
Boris's tanks will just have driven round the Maginot Line.......
But even if the EU were to say something along those lines, there would be no reason to believe they would stick to that view. How many times did it repeat that May's WA was not going to be re-opened. Pragmatic real politics would intervene were there to be a change of UK government.
No, I think the balance of probabilities is that they would reject a further extension. Of course, its essentially unknowable for sure what they would do until they were faced with the decision. But it does mean that the opposition rejecting the deal are forced to contemplate the possibility of either No Deal or revoke.
If an election were called as a result of the Deal dailing to clear Parliament, it seems unlikely that an extension would be refused to allow the election to be held.
Who knows ? Which is rather the point (FWIW, I'd put it around 50/50, but that's a pure guess).
Katya Adler is a quite fair minded analyst, and has her doubts, too:
What are the reasons for Labour opposing the deal?
Varies I'd say. Some are remainers who can't/won't accept the result. Others are tribal and won't support any deal negotiated by Boris. Corbyn's plan I think has been to string the whole thing out as long as possible to try and force an election but this far that hasn't worked.
And now he'll get his election, but on around 20% in the polls......
Or 29% /30% according to Comres /Panelbase.
Not after he dicks about blocking a deal with the EU......
They didn't concede everything. They got the level playing field excluded from the WA, a NI decision on the arrangements every four years, and the whole UK outside the Customs Union and benefitting from trade deals.
All of which, except for the Stormont agreement bit (which could probably have been agreed two years ago), was in the EU's original proposal for how to deal with the Irish border issue, which Boris rejected at the time because it requires some customs checks in the Irish Sea.
But, hey, I don't mind. This is theatre (a farce, as it happens) designed to con the ERGers into voting for exactly what they previously railed against. If Boris can bring off that betrayal without losing too many of them, then great. If he can bring it off whilst also ridding the party of a few of the more bonkers ones, then even better.
We can already see the pro-Johnson lobby spinning this as a victory for the great man and how only his leadership of the "greatest place on Earth" has made this possible but, like you, I can easily see through this nonsense.
The EU have got most if not all of their original position from 2017 and we now have the vaguely amusing vignettes of Boris, JRM and the rest of the ERG trying to explain why a Deal which they couldn't support in January is now ideal in October.
Just think, we could have had an election earlier this week and if elected, PM Corbyn could have been heading to Europe today to request an extension in order to hold a referendum.
Wonder whether the Remainers Against an Election have realised they screwed up?
Or we could have had Boris in much the same position as Gordon Brown two days after the 2010 GE shrugging his shoulders and saying "me? I'm just minding the shop until Corbyn, Swinson and Sturgeon sort their shit"
As I understand it the DUP have only said that they won't support the deal, not that they would oppose it; makes quite a big difference to the Parliamentary maths.
stodge says: "Boris has handed the EU a huge victory. Dropping the backstop in favour of a border in the Irish Sea is exactly what the EU wanted originally so they have enthusiastically signed up to it."
Boris has put Brexit before 31/10 ahead of the Union. Shame.
Boris has put Boris before every other consideration. That should not be a surprise.
Nonsense spin. Northern Ireland has the most privileged position in the UK now. It will get the benefits of both frictionless access to the single market AND tariff reductions from UK trade deals AND a big package of aid from UK/ROI/EU AND the choice to leave every four years. Northern Ireland would be mad to leave the union now.
One thing that Boris proves is the power of personality. He has one, May doesn't, and in doing something like a Brexit deal having a personality counts more than brains.
As I understand it the DUP have only said that they won't support the deal, not that they would oppose it; makes quite a big difference to the Parliamentary maths.
A lot of Labour MPs will abstain too, IMHO. Even if Corbyn won't make that the party line, they can still blame a "Tory Brexit" in their election literature, without pissing off their voters by blocking a deal.
Looks like the EU are on board by not allowing more time
Well, that's the LibDems buggered then.
"The battle to rejoin starts here!"
"You, er, got any other policies?"
"Um...the battle to rejoin starts here!"
Their electoral argument is quite clear. A relatively hard Brexit like this enables the twin extremes of British politics, to which they provide an alternative.
Their "alternative" has been to over-ride the 17.4m who voted for Brexit.
How very Liberal, how very Democratic.....
Yawn. They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis.
Some of them did, the ones people have heard of... didn't.
It was in the manifesto.
It wasn't in Heidi Allen's, or Chuka Umunna's, or Sarah Wollastons, or Angela Smith's...
Ronnie Campbell didn't vote for MV3 and has said he'd vote for this deal now. So that leaves six more to find, though could be less required if there are abstentions as last time.
As I understand it the DUP have only said that they won't support the deal, not that they would oppose it; makes quite a big difference to the Parliamentary maths.
Ronnie Campbell didn't vote for MV3 and has said he'd vote for this deal now. So that leaves six more to find, though could be less required if there are abstentions as last time.
There will be 2-5 Tory rebels. Patterson for example.
In the 1980s or 1990s psychologists made an interesting finding regarding homophobes.
They opposed equal rights (marriage, next of kin status, etc) for gay people. As would be expected. But if informed beforehand that gay people opposed such rights, the homophobes were found to be in favour of them.
Has someone screenshotted the Farage tweet, he's bound to take it down shortly.
Yes.
I quite like the idea that UK law should oblige the EU to keep the UK in their club. It is a completely ridiculous argument even if you ignore the hypocrisy.
If the deal now fails in parliament due to "remainer opposition" then its unlikely the EU would actually refuse an extension. This deal may satisfy them but having the UK call the whole thing off is still a better long term prize for the EU, in budgetary terms as well as the political message that leaving is a failure. they would still grant one. Of course they have already said many times "no more extensions" but the key thing is it doesn't actually cost them anything apart from a bit of annoyance at dragging the process out, whereas vetoing an extension carries more risks.
I had been thinking Boris would get his deal through parliament just, but the DUP saying no may swing it the other way. Will be very close for sure.
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Whether Junker is right that the EU will refuse any further extension is irrelevent for the moment. The political point is he is helpfully parroting Johnson talking points as was Barnier this morning. They are helping sell the deal. In fairness they did exactly the same re May's. But they want this to pass and are trying to help. That's the politics of it.
If the EU does adhere to Juncker's 'no further extensions' line why would the hard-Brexiteers vote for the Boris Deal when the alternative is a No Deal WTO exit?
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
If the EU does adhere to Juncker's 'no further extensions' line why would the hard-Brexiteers vote for the Boris Deal when the alternative is a No Deal WTO exit?
Maybe it's a bluff, maybe it isn't. Do they risk what could be the last shot of ever leaving?
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
Isn't that going to be covered by rules on 'Origin' in any FTA.
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
Any trade deal with NZ could be years after a trade deal with the EU. What legal safeguard would they have against it?
Would it mean they would be looking for large concessions elsewhere to make up for it? Say on fisheries? Something else?
People's Vote not pushing a second referendum on Super Saturday is their least worst option. 1. They don't have the numbers. 2. Unless MV4 goes down there will be no referendum anyway. So why overreach.
In short this is a car crash for Remainers. They have to save the patient by getting us into a Benn Act extension before doing fancy surgery. Not pushing a 2nd ref vote is smart triage.
To get back to, within a hair's breadth, May's deal. And specifically including something that May said no British PM could ever sign up to.
What an absolutely bonkers last three years this has been.
There do appear to be differences in the NI situation with alignment to UK and EU also consent. It can fairly be argued that it is not comparing apples with apples. The comparator may be Pears, Oranges, Avocados or just cooking apples. That will depend on the viewpoint, I suspect.
If the EU does adhere to Juncker's 'no further extensions' line why would the hard-Brexiteers vote for the Boris Deal when the alternative is a No Deal WTO exit?
There is only a handful of ERG members who would follow that line. Even Peter Bone has said he will vote for it
People's Vote not pushing a second referendum on Super Saturday is their least worst option. 1. They don't have the numbers. 2. Unless MV4 goes down there will be no referendum anyway. So why overreach.
In short this is a car crash for Remainers. They have to save the patient by getting us into a Benn Act extension before doing fancy surgery. Not pushing a 2nd ref vote is smart triage.
If the EU does adhere to Juncker's 'no further extensions' line why would the hard-Brexiteers vote for the Boris Deal when the alternative is a No Deal WTO exit?
If the EU does adhere to Juncker's 'no further extensions' line why would the hard-Brexiteers vote for the Boris Deal when the alternative is a No Deal WTO exit?
They might well do that, but there will surely be many Labour abstensions if No Deal' is very much alive and on the table. The deal will pass to avoid a shoot out between No Deal and Revoke,
People's Vote not pushing a second referendum on Super Saturday is their least worst option. 1. They don't have the numbers. 2. Unless MV4 goes down there will be no referendum anyway. So why overreach.
In short this is a car crash for Remainers. They have to save the patient by getting us into a Benn Act extension before doing fancy surgery. Not pushing a 2nd ref vote is smart triage.
If you don't push for a referendum, what is the purpose of the extension? A little bit chicken and egg?
Juncker has done a Reverse Obama. By idiotically saying "no further extensions" he has ensured that this whore's charter of a "deal" will be rejected. Do the EU really want a "No Deal" Brexit ?
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
Isn't that going to be covered by rules on 'Origin' in any FTA.
Ah, okay. So if you're outside the customs union you need to provide paperwork to prove where the goods originated from to avoid the scenario I posited. That paperwork being one of those non-tariff barriers people talk about.
How much of a hassle for just-in-time manufacturing will that paperwork create?
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
Isn't that going to be covered by rules on 'Origin' in any FTA.
I thought that, but wasn't sure enough to put it in writing!
Looks like the EU are on board by not allowing more time
Well, that's the LibDems buggered then.
"The battle to rejoin starts here!"
"You, er, got any other policies?"
"Um...the battle to rejoin starts here!"
Their electoral argument is quite clear. A relatively hard Brexit like this enables the twin extremes of British politics, to which they provide an alternative.
Their "alternative" has been to over-ride the 17.4m who voted for Brexit.
How very Liberal, how very Democratic.....
Yawn. They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis.
Some of them did, the ones people have heard of... didn't.
It was in the manifesto.
It wasn't in Heidi Allen's, or Chuka Umunna's, or Sarah Wollastons, or Angela Smith's...
And ?
So it makes
"They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis"
I read that the political declaration includes the objective of a zero-tariff and no quota trade deal.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
We can deal with other countries
Isn't that quite a big advantage for the UK over the members of the EU customs union? Why would they allow us that advantage?
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Political declaration not binding and assumes "good behaviour" on both sides. The EU would chuck it straight in the bin if the UK tried something like that - and we would deserve no better.
Isn't that going to be covered by rules on 'Origin' in any FTA.
I thought that, but wasn't sure enough to put it in writing!
Which is why I framed the answer as a query (without a ? at the end!) - I don't know but think and assume that is the case until some brainy person beats me about the head, tells me I'm stupid and gives me the right answer..
Which is why the only way out of this for Labour is for Brexit to be done and in the rearview mirror. They can then start arguing about a US FTA where they will be united.
Juncker has done a Reverse Obama. By idiotically saying "no further extensions" he has ensured that this whore's charter of a "deal" will be rejected. Do the EU really want a "No Deal" Brexit ?
It is not just Juncker but the Belgium PM as well and also Macron
Why on earth you think no deal exit will win the day.
If no extensions are confirmed later by the EU leaders then I expect the HOC to pass this deal
Juncker has done a Reverse Obama. By idiotically saying "no further extensions" he has ensured that this whore's charter of a "deal" will be rejected. Do the EU really want a "No Deal" Brexit ?
Either way it is a triumph for Boris, either the Commons passes his Brexit Deal with the EU or the Commons rejects it and he can blame No Deal on the opposition and the EU having still delivered Brexit thanks to Juncker refusing any further extension and making the Benn Act redundant
Comments
Surely they wouldn't be so stupid? The likes of Mark Franc … oh, wait.
UK to leave by 31 Oct
Not even a whisper of a resignation so far today. That's an interesting diagnostic of the prospects for Johnson's deal.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1184835328810639373?s=20
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1184835623183699968?s=20
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1184836021067878401?s=20
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1184835173889855493?s=20
Katya Adler is a quite fair minded analyst, and has her doubts, too:
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1184832665440129024
LOL.
The EU have got most if not all of their original position from 2017 and we now have the vaguely amusing vignettes of Boris, JRM and the rest of the ERG trying to explain why a Deal which they couldn't support in January is now ideal in October.
I am not a trade expert. Can anyone explain what the difference is between that and being in a customs union?
Who is next going to get exposed for telling porkie pies.
Roll up roll up.
Is this a joke?
Honestly, I don't know anymore.
Bon Appetit!
Is this true? If no DUP then deal will surely not pass Commons.
Always said Farage was a secret Remainer.
Loathsome pillock. I have NEVER stinted in my contempt for Farage, in all my time on pb.com.
They opposed equal rights (marriage, next of kin status, etc) for gay people. As would be expected. But if informed beforehand that gay people opposed such rights, the homophobes were found to be in favour of them.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1184800415948460038
Though struggling to find a second source, or a statement from a DUP member stating the same thing.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1184841118913044480
I had been thinking Boris would get his deal through parliament just, but the DUP saying no may swing it the other way. Will be very close for sure.
Suppose we agree a trade deal with New Zealand that includes cutting tariffs on their agricultural produce to zero. What's to stop Kiwi butter imported to the UK from being exported to the EU, thereby dodging whatever tariff the EU imposes to protect European dairy farmers?
Nigel Farage wants us to remain in the EU, and
The People's Vote lot don't want a People's Vote.
Fuck it, I'm out.
What an absolutely bonkers last three years this has been.
Would it mean they would be looking for large concessions elsewhere to make up for it? Say on fisheries? Something else?
In short this is a car crash for Remainers. They have to save the patient by getting us into a Benn Act extension before doing fancy surgery. Not pushing a 2nd ref vote is smart triage.
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1184842925286580224
Do the EU really want a "No Deal" Brexit ?
How much of a hassle for just-in-time manufacturing will that paperwork create?
"They campaigned against leaving without a further referendum at the last election, and were elected on that basis"
incorrect
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1184834973662175234?s=20
Why on earth you think no deal exit will win the day.
If no extensions are confirmed later by the EU leaders then I expect the HOC to pass this deal