No, you didn't. You specifically argued that the majority should not be able to override the minority in cases whe it came to denying them the ability to vote on the laws that they were subject to. If I knew how to do it I would search a few of your choicer quotes out, but I don't! However, we both know what you said. You have changed your mind, though, and that is a good thing. Your previous position was ridiculous.
The minority will have the right to vote though. If the minority becomes a majority and votes to leave these arrangements then they leave these arrangements. That wasn't the case previously.
They will not have the right to vote on the body makig the laws that will apply to them. This was your very firm red line. It turned out to be as firm as Johnson's. I am delighted to welcome two repenting sinners to the fold!!
Actually I specifically and repeatedly said that an arrangement such as this would meet my concerns. I specifically gave the example a few times of Norway which is fine for me democratically.
Reason is that Norway has democratically reached a decision to follow certain EU laws. That is their choice and they can give notice at any time that they wish to diverge in which case they can after a notice period. The voters aren't disenfranchised - the body making the laws apply to them is the Norwegian Parliament choosing to mirror EU laws and they are electing the Norwegian Parliament.
Similarly here NI voters will be electing Stormont's MLAs. And the MLAs will be choosing to mirror certain EU laws for as long as they choose to stay within the system. The Parliament that is directly choosing to have those laws apply to NI is not the European Parliament . . . it is Stormont and Stormont can end the arrangement if that is what the voters choose to do.
I specifically and repeatedly said that if Stormont had the right to end the arrangements then I would be satisfied with that.
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Size of the market is not the be all and end all.
We have fewer vested interests as a single nation than as a bloc.
We have less ability to protect our interests as a single nation than as a bloc, you mean. Deregulation and a one-sided trade deal with the US are more or less inevitable post-Brexit.
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Assuming this does go through on Saturday can someone explain the benefits that we will all receive once we are out of the EU. How is it going to make our lives better? What has been driving the brexiteers to press the for this huge change in Britain's position? What will be the performance o indicators for brexit?
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Size of the market is not the be all and end all.
We have fewer vested interests as a single nation than as a bloc.
We have less ability to protect our interests as a single nation than as a bloc, you mean. Deregulation and a one-sided trade deal with the US are more or less inevitable post-Brexit.
I disagree because I think domestic opposition would be strong.
But in the context of Northern Ireland it is irrelevant. NI would get the tariff cuts but remain in EU regulation. So all the benefits and none of the costs.
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
I think it has a great chance of completely torpedoing the deal.
Its lunacy. If the EU turn round and say on your bike, just get it voted through then it actively encourages no deal amongst the ERG because there is a hard deadline. Letwin hasn't thought this through.
Its lunacy. If the EU turn round and say on your bike, just get it voted through then it actively encourages no deal amongst the ERG because there is a hard deadline. Letwin hasn't thought this through.
Not sure Letwin actually has a brain to be able think with!
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
ERG seem to be genuinely accepting the deal, rather than having some nefarious plan to bait and switch. So while I understand why Letwin wants protections, I don't think passage will block ERG votes.
So, just checking. The general population back remaining over either other option?
Remain most popular option. LDs on track to sweep general election.
47% back Brexit with the Boris Deal or No Deal, only 38% back Remain
Accept under the forced circumstances, not back: and it doesn't mean it is what they want anyway.
It would be more interestding if you explored the difference. In Scotland, which you have as backing Brexit by 52, the same poll has the anti-brexit vote is even higher than at the referendum, at 64%.
It's delusive to ignore that discrepancy.
It isn't provided Scots prioritise staying in the UK over staying in the EU, which they do in most polls except in the case of No Deal
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Size of the market is not the be all and end all.
We have fewer vested interests as a single nation than as a bloc.
We have less ability to protect our interests as a single nation than as a bloc, you mean. Deregulation and a one-sided trade deal with the US are more or less inevitable post-Brexit.
I disagree because I think domestic opposition would be strong.
But in the context of Northern Ireland it is irrelevant. NI would get the tariff cuts but remain in EU regulation. So all the benefits and none of the costs.
The economic context changes once we are out of the EU. We will struggle to attract inwards investment without promising a more free market environment for investors. We will not be in a position to say no to a deal with the US, it will be presented in TINA terms like the unpopular Thatcher reforms. Opposition will be overcome quite easily I would expect.
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Because the UK can conclude these deals far quicker than the EU, it is a priority for the UK, and the UK do not need to satisy as many domestic lobbies to get something passed.
Do you think India would meekly accept whatever UK throws at them ? How about 5m visas guaranteed ?
With all the Brexiteers falling in behind a deal, it removes the question of putting No Deal on a second referendum ballot. We can have a straight Deal v Remain referendum.
With all the Brexiteers falling in behind a deal, it removes the question of putting No Deal on a second referendum ballot. We can have a straight Deal v Remain referendum.
With all the Brexiteers falling in behind a deal, it removes the question of putting No Deal on a second referendum ballot. We can have a straight Deal v Remain referendum.
You don't give up do you 😂
I swear the Meaningful Vote could go through on Saturday, the WAIB could get its third reading and royal assent, the EU Parliament and Council ratify this deal etc . . . and you will still be talking up suggestions this is good news for remain.
I support the action, but that is such a cop out. A referendum is really about remaining, if she thinks we need to leave then there is no need for a referendum. And supporting it subject to a referendum is measly language as it is not supporting it at all .
Easy way out and can kick, or actually seeking remain.
Excellent tweet from Sam who I think will be a real asset to the LDs going forward. This is the game plan from the No Dealers who, having been blocked from getting what they wanted this year, are now going to get their way next year.
The WA is voted through and having won a mandate at a GE in the spring we move through Transition only to exit without an FTA to No Deal by 31/12/20. I now think this is the alternative Cummings strategy and with a majority for Johnson in the Commons and a WTA agreed there'll be nothing to stop it.
Be careful what you wish for.
That's lovely, but effectively you're/he's saying that we can't ever be allowed to leave the EU because the Article 50 mechanism means there's always the prospect of No Deal if FTA negotiations fail during the transition, and/or because the transition period won't ever be long enough to "guarantee" agreement.
Which is fine as a view in principle I guess, but a) I thought you were a Leaver and b) telling Leavers that the EU's rules keep us trapped in it against our will is hardly a vote winner.
In any event, Johnson and Cummings are both on record as soft Leavers in favour of a comprehensive FTA, and Gyimah and his mates pissing around is as much a cause of us having burned through a third of the available transition period already as Johnson and his mates pissing around.
So, just checking. The general population back remaining over either other option?
Remain most popular option. LDs on track to sweep general election.
47% back Brexit with the Boris Deal or No Deal, only 38% back Remain
Accept under the forced circumstances, not back: and it doesn't mean it is what they want anyway.
It would be more interestding if you explored the difference. In Scotland, which you have as backing Brexit by 52, the same poll has the anti-brexit vote is even higher than at the referendum, at 64%.
It's delusive to ignore that discrepancy.
It isn't provided Scots prioritise staying in the UK over staying in the EU, which they do in most polls except in the case of No Deal
A check of John Curtice's website doesnt show any polls on this later than 2016.
I support the action, but that is such a cop out. A referendum is really about remaining, if she things we need to leave then there is no need for a referendum. And approving it subject to a referendum is measly language as it is not approving it at all .
Easy way out and can kick, or actually seeking remain.
It is not unreasonable to argue that even if we are leaving the terms of the deal should be put to the public in a confirmatory vote.
Silly question. You know that £39/33bn, Citizens Rights &c in the WA. Is that tired to FTA at this point or unconditional?
To then No Deal after agreeing all that??
What flavour cheese would go best with that level of surrender?
The 33bn is tied to the WA. If the WA is not passed, there is no question of a FTA at all. Surprisingly, the mad hatters aren't complaining about the 33bn this time. I believe with Mrs May, despite her incompetence, there was a large dose of sexism involved with ERG types.
With all the Brexiteers falling in behind a deal, it removes the question of putting No Deal on a second referendum ballot. We can have a straight Deal v Remain referendum.
Alternatively a) it means we've effectively already had that referendum, since (as is now well established) all Leave groups agreed that No Deal was always just scaremongering by Remainers ,or b) there's minimal risk in putting No Deal on the ballot paper, so we can have a straightforward Deal vs No Deal confirmatory referendum.
Silly question. You know that £39/33bn, Citizens Rights &c in the WA. Is that tired to FTA at this point or unconditional?
To then No Deal after agreeing all that??
What flavour cheese would go best with that level of surrender?
Citizens rights is something we want to agree, why should it be conditional?
The £39/33bn is a price for what we owe plus payments due for the transition period, its not to do with a future FTA.
And if we don't get that, is it no deal thereafter ?
Puts the UK in an exceedingly weak negotiation position now that NI is out of the equation - though I suppose that prospect does give some incentive to the Spartans to vote for the current deal...
Excellent tweet from Sam who I think will be a real asset to the LDs going forward. This is the game plan from the No Dealers who, having been blocked from getting what they wanted this year, are now going to get their way next year.
The WA is voted through and having won a mandate at a GE in the spring we move through Transition only to exit without an FTA to No Deal by 31/12/20. I now think this is the alternative Cummings strategy and with a majority for Johnson in the Commons and a WTA agreed there'll be nothing to stop it.
Be careful what you wish for.
That's lovely, but effectively you're/he's saying that we can't ever be allowed to leave the EU because the Article 50 mechanism means there's always the prospect of No Deal if FTA negotiations fail during the transition, and/or because the transition period won't ever be long enough to "guarantee" agreement.
Which is fine as a view in principle I guess, but a) I thought you were a Leaver and b) telling Leavers that the EU's rules keep us trapped in it against our will is hardly a vote winner.
In any event, Johnson and Cummings are both on record as soft Leavers in favour of a comprehensive FTA, and Gyimah and his mates pissing around is as much a cause of us having burned through a third of the available transition period already as Johnson and his mates pissing around.
What it means is that next year will be a Groundhog Day of this year.
So, just checking. The general population back remaining over either other option?
Remain most popular option. LDs on track to sweep general election.
47% back Brexit with the Boris Deal or No Deal, only 38% back Remain
Accept under the forced circumstances, not back: and it doesn't mean it is what they want anyway.
It would be more interestding if you explored the difference. In Scotland, which you have as backing Brexit by 52, the same poll has the anti-brexit vote is even higher than at the referendum, at 64%.
It's delusive to ignore that discrepancy.
It isn't provided Scots prioritise staying in the UK over staying in the EU, which they do in most polls except in the case of No Deal
A check of John Curtice's website doesnt show any polls on this later than 2016.
No current poll gives Yes a majority except with the scenario of No Deal.
Only 54% of Scots still back Remaining in the EU with Yougov today too
Well... That's something. Good thing we aren't hooking all our hopes on the USA as it becomes an increasingly declining power.
The USA is still comfortably the world's foremost economic and military power and Erdogan would do well to remember that, especially as Trump never forgets or forgives a slight
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
ERG seem to be genuinely accepting the deal, rather than having some nefarious plan to bait and switch. So while I understand why Letwin wants protections, I don't think passage will block ERG votes.
Their worry is that if the deal scrapes through now, it may only take a tiny handful of ERG nutters to switch back and sink it on the later readings. Hence Letwin sensibly wants the provisions of the Benn Act to continue to apply. Call it a backstop.
Well... That's something. Good thing we aren't hooking all our hopes on the USA as it becomes an increasingly declining power.
The USA is still comfortably the world's foremost economic and military power and Erdogan would do well to remember that, especially as Trump never forgets or forgives a slight
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Because the UK can conclude these deals far quicker than the EU, it is a priority for the UK, and the UK do not need to satisy as many domestic lobbies to get something passed.
Do you think India would meekly accept whatever UK throws at them ? How about 5m visas guaranteed ?
No, I think there will be a negotiation. But I think the UK will agree one before the EU does.
So, just checking. The general population back remaining over either other option?
Remain most popular option. LDs on track to sweep general election.
47% back Brexit with the Boris Deal or No Deal, only 38% back Remain
Accept under the forced circumstances, not back: and it doesn't mean it is what they want anyway.
It would be more interestding if you explored the difference. In Scotland, which you have as backing Brexit by 52, the same poll has the anti-brexit vote is even higher than at the referendum, at 64%.
It's delusive to ignore that discrepancy.
It isn't provided Scots prioritise staying in the UK over staying in the EU, which they do in most polls except in the case of No Deal
A check of John Curtice's website doesnt show any polls on this later than 2016.
No current poll gives Yes a majority except with the scenario of No Deal.
Only 54% of Scots still back Remaining in the EU with Yougov today too
Curtice did an interesting summary of where he thinks we are pollwise on the BBC News website yesterday.
Excellent tweet from Sam who I think will be a real asset to the LDs going forward. This is the game plan from the No Dealers who, having been blocked from getting what they wanted this year, are now going to get their way next year.
The WA is voted through and having won a mandate at a GE in the spring we move through Transition only to exit without an FTA to No Deal by 31/12/20. I now think this is the alternative Cummings strategy and with a majority for Johnson in the Commons and a WTA agreed there'll be nothing to stop it.
Be careful what you wish for.
That's lovely, but effectively you're/he's saying that we can't ever be allowed to leave the EU because the Article 50 mechanism means there's always the prospect of No Deal if FTA negotiations fail during the transition, and/or because the transition period won't ever be long enough to "guarantee" agreement.
Which is fine as a view in principle I guess, but a) I thought you were a Leaver and b) telling Leavers that the EU's rules keep us trapped in it against our will is hardly a vote winner....
Which was the best argument in favour of May's deal. It effectively granted us extremely favourable terms during the transition period, which gave the EU considerable incentive to agree a final deal to get us out of transition. Johnson's deal puts all the pressure on the UK.
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
ERG seem to be genuinely accepting the deal, rather than having some nefarious plan to bait and switch. So while I understand why Letwin wants protections, I don't think passage will block ERG votes.
Their worry is that if the deal scrapes through now, it may only take a tiny handful of ERG nutters to switch back and sink it on the later readings. Hence Letwin sensibly wants the provisions of the Benn Act to continue to apply. Call it a backstop.
Not really as the entire basis of Labour LibDem and Tory positions is altered by having agreed the Deal.
The ERG will have less power after the deal is done.
Parliament still has the whip hand and could force extensions still. The Spartans just want to keep the dream alive.
But if Boris goes to the country and gets a huge majority after the Deal is voted down...
Isn’t it pretty much impossible that a trade deal will be landed next year? The ratification process takes an age even if the deal is agreed in principle, and that also takes an age.
This is simply the ERG trying to get a no deal exit by the backdoor
Silly question. You know that £39/33bn, Citizens Rights &c in the WA. Is that tired to FTA at this point or unconditional?
To then No Deal after agreeing all that??
What flavour cheese would go best with that level of surrender?
Most of the money is paid during the transition (for the transition). Nothing is conditional on reaching a FTA. This is the very essence of the sequencing set out by Article 50.
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
ERG seem to be genuinely accepting the deal, rather than having some nefarious plan to bait and switch. So while I understand why Letwin wants protections, I don't think passage will block ERG votes.
Their worry is that if the deal scrapes through now, it may only take a tiny handful of ERG nutters to switch back and sink it on the later readings. Hence Letwin sensibly wants the provisions of the Benn Act to continue to apply. Call it a backstop.
Not really as the entire basis of Labour LibDem and Tory positions is altered by having agreed the Deal.
The ERG will have less power after the deal is done.
But the deal (strictly the WAIB) needs to be voted through at second and third reading. It won’t be “done” if it scrapes through on Saturday. Whereas the Benn Act, on current drafting, would fall in such circumstances. Hence the need for Letwin.
It would be very easy for a few MPs to find some in principle objection to some part of the WAIB. Indeed Mrs M denied its publication in draft for precisely this reason.
I support the action, but that is such a cop out. A referendum is really about remaining, if she things we need to leave then there is no need for a referendum. And approving it subject to a referendum is measly language as it is not approving it at all .
Easy way out and can kick, or actually seeking remain.
It is not unreasonable to argue that even if we are leaving the terms of the deal should be put to the public in a confirmatory vote.
And we now have two possible withdrawal agreements for the public to choose between.
Well... That's something. Good thing we aren't hooking all our hopes on the USA as it becomes an increasingly declining power.
The USA is still comfortably the world's foremost economic and military power and Erdogan would do well to remember that, especially as Trump never forgets or forgives a slight
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Suppose the EU is hamstrung by every member country having to agree on deals.
Imagine of the UK's trade deals had to be approved by every city and county council in the country.
Macron Says U.K. Must Not Get New Delay if Parliament Vote Fails
And Merkel says the opposite...hmmm..
Looking on from Denmark it is incredible people are arguing over whether they should vote for the deal or not - if you want to avoid no deal, vote for the deal. Patience with the UK is stretched to breaking point. If you think the deal is an abomination abstain. But even if Macron wilts, which he might do, the EU had bent over backwards to help the UK political class - this group of useless tossers are still wanting to go round in circles - our PM Mette Frederikson is already moving on to the budget and building the coalition (with Sweden, Austria and the netherlands) to keep finances under control post-Brexit - the UK is gone already in most people's eyes here - stop faffing about and get the thing signed so a decent FTA can get arranged - preferably after an election in early December. Kom så Storbritannian - bare gør det!
Have you ever thought about taking responsibility for your own actions rather than blaming others?
As someone who voted Conservative in 2015, 2017 and likely will next time you are more responsible for Brexit than someone who voted against this deal and in favour of a referendum. If there were more MPs like Corbyn, or less voters like you, Brexit wouldn't be happening.
You may be happy to take Brexit as the cost of voting Tory but blaming others for things you are happily voting for is a complete cop out.
Letwin amendment : I`ve been trying to get to grips with this. It looks pretty certain that this amendment will pass - and it could create a stumbling-block to get support for the deal from ERG memnbers.
Comments?
ERG seem to be genuinely accepting the deal, rather than having some nefarious plan to bait and switch. So while I understand why Letwin wants protections, I don't think passage will block ERG votes.
Their worry is that if the deal scrapes through now, it may only take a tiny handful of ERG nutters to switch back and sink it on the later readings. Hence Letwin sensibly wants the provisions of the Benn Act to continue to apply. Call it a backstop.
Not really as the entire basis of Labour LibDem and Tory positions is altered by having agreed the Deal.
The ERG will have less power after the deal is done.
But the deal (strictly the WAIB) needs to be voted through at second and third reading. It won’t be “done” if it scrapes through on Saturday. Whereas the Benn Act, on current drafting, would fall in such circumstances. Hence the need for Letwin.
It would be very easy for a few MPs to find some in principle objection to some part of the WAIB. Indeed Mrs M denied its publication in draft for precisely this reason.
It’s silly if the deal is passed a few Nutters can’t block it as there would be no reason for other parties to not support the WAIB would they?
Feels like this is the deal May wanted, but her 2017 election result made impossible.
I don't think so. May believes in the Union. Johnson doesn't. More precisely Johnson believes in whatever advantages him. Every other principle is dispensable. It's a very liberating philosophy.
I'm calling out your complete bollocks that Boris doesn't believe in the Union.
Fair enough I'm sure Johnson does believe in the Union at some level. He keeps talking about Britain, so we have to assume it's a thing for him. But it isn't a priority for him as it is for May, and as this header points out. He won't take action to support the Union if other things dictate otherwise.
What are Johnson's priorities? Frankly on the evidence: himself.
Like so many English Brexiteers (as evidenced on here), BJ hasn't made the necessary differentiation between England and the UK. This it almost goes without saying means he has no understanding of Scotland, but barely any about Scottish Unionism.
Yes. You and I obviously come from different places on this. But even I accept it's over for the Union, if English aren't prepared to make it work.
If you look at how young Scots voted in IndyRef, it is over in the long run anyway. Unless the SNP mess it up by rerunning the vote too soon.
Young people voted 50/50 in the independence referendum, just like everyone else, except the over 65s and those born outside Scotland. I doubt Brexit will encourage people towards the Union.
I still dont know how the FT arrived at such a close vote estimate. If they are right a bare handful of extra labour are all that is needed, which is doable.
The real irony. If the 7 Sinn Fein MPs were to sit in the HoC, they would have voted for @BorisJohnson 's Deal whether they would admit it or not. SF can't believe their luck.
Not really. The deal gives Northern Ireland a tremendous advantage to gain from UK FTAs, giving it a privileged position it will not have in the ROI. That will become a major barrier to unification.
Why would UK FTA's be better than EU ones ? The EU gives a market of 400m people. The UK gives 65m.
Suppose the EU is hamstrung by every member country having to agree on deals.
Imagine of the UK's trade deals had to be approved by every city and county council in the country.
the deals will still be a lot shittier than what we currently have
Comments
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1185166915817398272
Reason is that Norway has democratically reached a decision to follow certain EU laws. That is their choice and they can give notice at any time that they wish to diverge in which case they can after a notice period. The voters aren't disenfranchised - the body making the laws apply to them is the Norwegian Parliament choosing to mirror EU laws and they are electing the Norwegian Parliament.
Similarly here NI voters will be electing Stormont's MLAs. And the MLAs will be choosing to mirror certain EU laws for as long as they choose to stay within the system. The Parliament that is directly choosing to have those laws apply to NI is not the European Parliament . . . it is Stormont and Stormont can end the arrangement if that is what the voters choose to do.
I specifically and repeatedly said that if Stormont had the right to end the arrangements then I would be satisfied with that.
That would slightly reduce the risk of a No Deal crashout from the transition.
Comments?
But in the context of Northern Ireland it is irrelevant. NI would get the tariff cuts but remain in EU regulation. So all the benefits and none of the costs.
I swear the Meaningful Vote could go through on Saturday, the WAIB could get its third reading and royal assent, the EU Parliament and Council ratify this deal etc . . . and you will still be talking up suggestions this is good news for remain.
To then No Deal after agreeing all that??
What flavour cheese would go best with that level of surrender?
Easy way out and can kick, or actually seeking remain.
The £39/33bn is a price for what we owe plus payments due for the transition period, its not to do with a future FTA.
Which is fine as a view in principle I guess, but a) I thought you were a Leaver and b) telling Leavers that the EU's rules keep us trapped in it against our will is hardly a vote winner.
In any event, Johnson and Cummings are both on record as soft Leavers in favour of a comprehensive FTA, and Gyimah and his mates pissing around is as much a cause of us having burned through a third of the available transition period already as Johnson and his mates pissing around.
I believe with Mrs May, despite her incompetence, there was a large dose of sexism involved with ERG types.
Let's say the vote is lost. What then?
Puts the UK in an exceedingly weak negotiation position now that NI is out of the equation - though I suppose that prospect does give some incentive to the Spartans to vote for the current deal...
https://twitter.com/nicholascecil/status/1185145415013937152
Only 54% of Scots still back Remaining in the EU with Yougov today too
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1185166961547894784
Steve Baker has rowed back massively, presumably hoping for a job in the future.
"I don't like this perspective but that is the choice of the British people."
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-50094274
Junker always helpful comments after lunch...
Their worry is that if the deal scrapes through now, it may only take a tiny handful of ERG nutters to switch back and sink it on the later readings. Hence Letwin sensibly wants the provisions of the Benn Act to continue to apply. Call it a backstop.
Putin will effectively dictate the terms of the settlement between the two sides, sooner or later.
Market has flip-flopped "No" is now strongish favourite. Maybe due to Letwin amendment?
It effectively granted us extremely favourable terms during the transition period, which gave the EU considerable incentive to agree a final deal to get us out of transition.
Johnson's deal puts all the pressure on the UK.
The ERG will have less power after the deal is done.
This is simply the ERG trying to get a no deal exit by the backdoor
If the deal falls tomorrow and Boris writes a letter the EU will say have another go next week, you have time.
However, if the HOC were to pass a referendum tomorrow that is very different but Corbyn is not putting forward that amendment
If the SNP want to try a vonc on Boris, Corbyn will not vote for it as he is terrified of a wipeout
So if neither a GE or a referendum is voted for tomorrow the EU will almost certainly confirm it is this deal or no deal
And Corbyn will be the most responsible for Brexit
It would be very easy for a few MPs to find some in principle objection to some part of the WAIB. Indeed Mrs M denied its publication in draft for precisely this reason.
Imagine of the UK's trade deals had to be approved by every city and county council in the country.
As someone who voted Conservative in 2015, 2017 and likely will next time you are more responsible for Brexit than someone who voted against this deal and in favour of a referendum. If there were more MPs like Corbyn, or less voters like you, Brexit wouldn't be happening.
You may be happy to take Brexit as the cost of voting Tory but blaming others for things you are happily voting for is a complete cop out.
The others should have listened to him before, we could have shortcutted all this.