isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Interesting and acute analysis.
I suppose we can put the fact that the Union will be less robust after Boris' deal into the Brexit Fatigue drawer.
I have to say that Boris blindsided me - I didn't think he would so casually imperil the Union and not because of the DUP but because he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party amongst other reasons.
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
Your incorrect analysis remains incorrect.
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Mr. Brom, aye. The Pussyfooting Parliament will probably vote for whatever avoids them actually making a decision, though.
It was always thus. Thankfully they cannot buy time forever and the mood music seems to be leaning towards the impasse ending.
I think we may all be underestimating the appetite Parliament collectively has for this to continue indefinitely.
I can’t see how Boris gets an election any time soon.
SNP might want an election before Alex is in court for alleged sex crimes at the end of January.
Lib-Dems will be up for it as they expect to make gains.
Not sure what DUP would do.
Con + SNP + Lib-Dem might be enough for a one line bill.
I was talking to a Lib Dem MP recently who told me that they aren't seeking an election soon. They think they will gain seats but there're worried about the Conservatives flopping over the line thanks to Corbyn's unpopularity. What they really want is Corbyn gone.
That sounds odd.
If Jezza goes a lot of Lab > Lib-Dem switchers could go back to Labour and if someone like Starmer takes over a lot of Con > Lib-Dem Remain switchers might be tempted to go to Labour too.
For the Lib-Dems it would be much better to have an election with Jezza still leading Lab I'd have thought?
I still think Boris would beat Starmer even if it would be part than against Corbyn.
The only way we get to No Deal from here, surely, is if the Benn Act is somehow revoked and that can only happen if Bercow allows a meaningful vote today. It's all in his hands.
As the ERG blurted out on Live TV, we can still get to No Deal if they pass the WA and then refuse to endorse any FTA. The cliff edge just moves. Again.
The cliff both shrinks (two extra years of preparation and with customs already approved. Plus there is next to zero chance of it happening given 80% of parliament would vote for an FTA
80% would vote for an FTA, but would they vote for the specific FTA negotiated?
Whether Leaver pr Remainer, hopefully all Brits can come together to be proud of being British.
Most Remainers see waving a union Jack as far right.
Not true. Many waved Union Jacks on the Saturday march. It is only a small minority of particularly obnoxious types that look down on British patriotism.
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Interesting and acute analysis.
I suppose we can put the fact that the Union will be less robust after Boris' deal into the Brexit Fatigue drawer.
I have to say that Boris blindsided me - I didn't think he would so casually imperil the Union and not because of the DUP but because he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party amongst other reasons.
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
Don't you mean "dead-angled" instead of that ableist term you used?
I can only apologise for putting it in such an egregious way.
The only way we get to No Deal from here, surely, is if the Benn Act is somehow revoked and that can only happen if Bercow allows a meaningful vote today. It's all in his hands.
As the ERG blurted out on Live TV, we can still get to No Deal if they pass the WA and then refuse to endorse any FTA. The cliff edge just moves. Again.
The cliff both shrinks (two extra years of preparation and with customs already approved. Plus there is next to zero chance of it happening given 80% of parliament would vote for an FTA
80% would vote for an FTA, but would they vote for the specific FTA negotiated?
HYUFD says: "What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union"
Ok - I accept this. But do you, as a brexiter, accept that:
1) May`s deal protected the union more than Boris`s does, 2) the general prinicple that any major consititutional change (as implied by Boris`s deal) should be subject to a referendum - and the 2016 referendum doesn`t cover this?
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Interesting and acute analysis.
I suppose we can put the fact that the Union will be less robust after Boris' deal into the Brexit Fatigue drawer.
I have to say that Boris blindsided me - I didn't think he would so casually imperil the Union and not because of the DUP but because he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party amongst other reasons.
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
Your incorrect analysis remains incorrect.
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Unless you keep the whole UK in the Single Market and Customs Union, ie no Brexit at all really, there was always going to be some special arrangements for NI to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland once GB left the EU and the single market and customs union
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Interesting and acute analysis.
I suppose we can put the fact that the Union will be less robust after Boris' deal into the Brexit Fatigue drawer.
I have to say that Boris blindsided me - I didn't think he would so casually imperil the Union and not because of the DUP but because he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party amongst other reasons.
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
How the UK becomes GB in this comment is a masterstroke of misdirection. GB may be out, but according to Leavers of yesteryear, NI should not be separate from GB, and under Johnson's deal it is (and Scotland would like the same deal)
HYUFD says: "What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union"
Ok - I accept this. But do you, as a brexiter, accept that:
1) May`s deal protected the union more than Boris`s does, 2) the general prinicple that any major consititutional change (as implied by Boris`s deal) should be subject to a referendum - and the 2016 referendum doesn`t cover this?
If May's deal protected the union more than Boris's, why would David Trimble vote for the latter but not the former?
The Boris deal puts consent back in the hands of Northern Ireland, a principle at the heart of the GFA. It also gives NI a privileged position that neither GB or ROI gets, which reduces the probability of reunification.
Whether Leaver pr Remainer, hopefully all Brits can come together to be proud of being British.
Why by celebrating something that occurred 200 years ago when the world was a very different place.
Not very different at all! Then as now, Britain was fighting for its freedom against a European Superstate.
[NB This is satire.]
The Napoleonic Empire wasn't a democracy though. France itself was, at the time, further down the road towards representative government than the UK was. I think; 'history' for scientists at my school finished at about 1700.
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
It actually would. She's been a form no pretending to be a maybe for so long, actually changing position would be crucial
I am not sure it is that significant. Backing the bill on second reading is the easy bit. My guess is quite a few Labour MPs will do that. It's a free hit. The third reading vote will be the one that matters because it will be on the post-scrutiny, final form of the legislation.
148grss said: "How the UK becomes GB in this comment is a masterstroke of misdirection. GB may be out, but according to Leavers of yesteryear, NI should not be separate from GB, and under Johnson's deal it is (and Scotland would like the same deal)"
Yes, GB may be flying out of the EU but NI is left in the departure lounge.
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Inte
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
Your incorrect analysis remains incorrect.
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Unless you keep the whole UK in the Single Market and Customs Union, ie no Brexit at all really, there was always going to be some special arrangements for NI to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland once GB left the EU and the single market and customs union
That's as maybe. But by your very own language you accept that the Union has become less tangible than previously. That, as I mentioned in my post, has been very surprising. From Corbyn perhaps but from a Conservative Prime Minister, I must say I was surprised.
Not presumably as surprised as you finding out that Boris didn't after all refuse to send a letter to the EU in order to lead the Conservatives victoriously into opposition, but surprised nevertheless.
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Interesting and acute analysis.
I suppose we can put the fact that the Union will be less robust after Boris' deal into the Brexit Fatigue drawer.
I have to say that Boris blindsided me - I didn't think he would so casually imperil the Union and not because of the DUP but because he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party amongst other reasons.
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
How the UK becomes GB in this comment is a masterstroke of misdirection. GB may be out, but according to Leavers of yesteryear, NI should not be separate from GB, and under Johnson's deal it is (and Scotland would like the same deal)
Which is not a difficult point to grasp, you'd have thought.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
HYUFD says: "What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union"
Ok - I accept this. But do you, as a brexiter, accept that:
1) May`s deal protected the union more than Boris`s does, 2) the general prinicple that any major consititutional change (as implied by Boris`s deal) should be subject to a referendum - and the 2016 referendum doesn`t cover this?
If May's deal protected the union more than Boris's, why would David Trimble vote for the latter but not the former?
The Boris deal puts consent back in the hands of Northern Ireland, a principle at the heart of the GFA. It also gives NI a privileged position that neither GB or ROI gets, which reduces the probability of reunification.
And put is, in many important ways, outside the United Kingdom.
1488grss said: "How the UK becomes GB in this comment is a masterstroke of misdirection. GB may be out, but according to Leavers of yesteryear, NI should not be separate from GB, and under Johnson's deal it is (and Scotland would like the same deal)"
Yes, GB may be flying out of the EU but NI is left in the departure lounge.
My name is not that number, and I have only just realised after almost a decade of using those numbers as usernames (because they were assigned to me once during uni) how close my name is to awful awful things.
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
If Nandy is on board then surely it passes (even if Boles does a u-turn), she has plenty of influence within the Labour leavers. That is massive. Now it's just up to Bercow to do the Letwin job of messing everything up.
Whether Leaver pr Remainer, hopefully all Brits can come together to be proud of being British.
Why by celebrating something that occurred 200 years ago when the world was a very different place.
Not very different at all! Then as now, Britain was fighting for its freedom against a European Superstate.
[NB This is satire.]
The Napoleonic Empire wasn't a democracy though. France itself was, at the time, further down the road towards representative government than the UK was. I think; 'history' for scientists at my school finished at about 1700.
France was an Empire (aka military dictatorship) at the time.
The UK was a constitutional monarchy with a representative government (albeit on a restricted franchise)
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
You could paraphrase that into a view that might be held by a majority of the population
Brexit must happen, but if it turns out to be as shit as expected, we would like a mechanism to turn back the clock, and severely punish the *&^%ards that pursued it.
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Inte
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been nion
Your incorrect analysis remains incorrect.
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Unless you keep the whole UK in and the single market and customs union
That's as maybe. But by your very own language you accept that the Union has become less tangible than previously. That, as I mentioned in my post, has been very surprising. From Corbyn perhaps but from a Conservative Prime Minister, I must say I was surprised.
Not presumably as surprised as you finding out that Boris didn't after all refuse to send a letter to the EU in order to lead the Conservatives victoriously into opposition, but surprised nevertheless.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
HYUFD says: "What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union"
Ok - I accept this. But do you, as a brexiter, accept that:
1) May`s deal protected the union more than Boris`s does, 2) the general prinicple that any major consititutional change (as implied by Boris`s deal) should be subject to a referendum - and the 2016 referendum doesn`t cover this?
If May's deal protected the union more than Boris's, why would David Trimble vote for the latter but not the former?
The Boris deal puts consent back in the hands of Northern Ireland, a principle at the heart of the GFA. It also gives NI a privileged position that neither GB or ROI gets, which reduces the probability of reunification.
In the debate on Saturday one of the DUP MPs made a great point about the effect of Johnson's deal on Northern Irish politics in the future. It went something like this...
Suppose you are a manufacturer in Northern Ireland and you have an interest in a new EU regulation that might affect you. Under Johnson's deal politicians in London can not help you. Politicians in Belfast could take you out of all EU regulations in four years, but that's an extreme step for one issue. So you would look to Dublin for politicians there to represent your interests in Brussels.
It completely changes the orientation of Northern Irish politics on matters relating to the EU from their own MEPs, or the UK Prime Minister in London, to the Irish Taoiseach and government in Dublin. And then people might reasonably wonder why they do not have a vote in electing Irish MEPs in Brussels, or in electing the Dáil in Dublin.
Hasn't NI effectively been given a FTA with the EU a couple of years before the rest of the UK can get one? If/when the UK does agree one, what "border" would exist between NI and GB?
The not sending a letter thing is honestly the biggest load of guff. I get a feeling there are actually quite a lot of people disappointed that he DID send the letter
The people who should be disappointed are the ones who believed him when he said he wouldn't
Taking people for fools his entire life
It was a negotiating strategy.
Parliament attempted to hamstring that approach.
It resulted in a deal despite their best efforts.
It's funny how opponents of Leave/Boris don't get this. Repeatedly saying we were leaving by Oct 31 has got us a deal that will pass (if they let anyone vote on it). Who cares if its in November or December?
If someone values a house at 500k and bids 400k for it, they haven't mugged themselves off if they end up buying it for 475k eventually. The joke is on the people who wanted to buy it, but are laughing at him for paying the sale price, whilst they sit in a house they don't like.
It worked (possibly) in conjunction with the Benn Act by the mechanism of Boris boxing himself in so much that he was compelled to drop his entire set of objections to the existing deal except for going back to the EU's previous offer of a special arrangement for NI, which was always available (in fact, preferred by the EU). A curious sort of victory.
The point is that many, I would say most, Leavers dont care! They just want what they voted for, us to Leave, done, and if that gets done, the details that Remainers obsess over to gain small wins for their ego's, don't matter.
But surely they voted to Leave to get the benefits of a Leave vote? If those benefits don’t happen won’t that bother them?
And if it won’t why not have a BINO then?
Because we are in the absurd situation where, nearly three and a half years after Leave won the referendum, MPs (who we were told would NOT have the final say), are refusing to pass a withdrawal agreement, and still hankering for Remain a la that old BBC show "Life without George"
I understand that. I wasn’t trying to make a clever point. I was asking why those who wanted Leave wouldn’t want to see the benefits accruing to them as a result of their vote. Would they be as indifferent to that as you seem to suggest? It’s a genuine question.
Scott_P says: "Brexit must happen, but if it turns out to be as shit as expected, we would like a mechanism to turn back the clock, and severely punish the *&^%ards that pursued it."
As someone clever once said: Democracy is the theory that people should get what they want - and they should get it good and hard.
Hasn't NI effectively been given a FTA with the EU a couple of years before the rest of the UK can get one? If/when the UK does agree one, what "border" would exist between NI and GB?
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
The compromise would be to have an indicative vote on Johnson's deal, so that we could gauge the level of support it enjoys, but that if it does have majority support we can still benefit from a modest extension to provide time for proper Parliamentary scrutiny.
Most governments at most times in the past would have very quickly offered such a compromise, probably before the debate on Saturday. It does this government no credit that it is unwilling to do so.
Most Remainers see waving a union Jack as far right.
Don't know about that but I freely admit that I am not keen on flag waving of any type. I express my patriotism in more subtle ways. For example, if I come across a foreigner slagging off Britain in a way that I find without merit I will raise an eyebrow and possibly (depending on the precise circumstances) say something.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
Scott_P says: "Brexit must happen, but if it turns out to be as shit as expected, we would like a mechanism to turn back the clock, and severely punish the *&^%ards that pursued it."
As someone clever once said: Democracy is the theory that people should get what they want - and they should get it good and hard.
Alistair made the point several times, and I agree with him, that only the hardest of Brexits will burn out the fever
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
Most Remainers see waving a union Jack as far right.
Don't know about that but I freely admit that I am not keen on flag waving of any type. I express my patriotism in more subtle ways. For example, if I come across a foreigner slagging off Britain in a way that I find without merit I will raise an eyebrow and possibly (depending on the precise circumstances) say something.
The good thing about our flag is that the design is so iconic that even if Brits are uncomfortable about 'jingoism' large swathes of the rest of the world seem happy to wear it, display it and embrace it. For the record I have a Union flag Beach Towel!
Whether Leaver pr Remainer, hopefully all Brits can come together to be proud of being British.
Why by celebrating something that occurred 200 years ago when the world was a very different place.
Because we stood up for freedom vs the overweening arrogance of a single Europe?
Depends on your perspective. In Naples, for instance, Napoleon was seen as on the side of freedom from autocratic rule - see the Parthenopean Republic - and the English, very specifically Nelson, as on the side of the autocrats. He is remembered as having said that those fighting for freedom against the Bourbons would be crushed as absolutely as Irish rebels. And they were - which is one reason why one of the main streets in Naples is named after one of the rebels hanged by the English.
The English like to think of themselves as being on the side of freedom. The facts show a much more complicated picture.
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
100% agreed. That is two very significant changes from Saturday to now and it would be inappropriate not to demonstrate to the letters recipients whether or not there is an agreement in principle with a meaningful vote.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
Fair point - and honest attempts at compromise on both sides have been scant. Both Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy deserve huge credit for trying, even at this late stage.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
Can Norway make trade deals around the world as an independent country?
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Only two things about Vote Leave’s campaign stuck with the public: the lie on the bus and the xenophobia. You get the mandate to hose the NHS with money and to be unpleasant to foreigners. The rest is all up for debate.
isam said: "The vast majority of MPs then stood at a GE promising to implement the result"
I like a lot of what you say, and the way that you say it. As a brexit neutral (narrow remain vote, almost spoilt my ballot paper) I`ve spent this weekend trying to get to grips with Boris`s deal.
It has become clear to me that his deal threatens the union in a way that May`s didn`t. But May`s deal didn`t satisfy those that won the referendum because it isn`t really Brexit (I agree).
The truth has now emerged that we cannot leave the EU to the satisfaction of those that wanted to leave it without threatening the union.
As my priority is to protect the union, I have changed my mind on a couple of areas:
1) May`s deal is better than Boris`s 2) Any deal that threatens the Union (e.g. Boris`s) must be subjected to a confirmatory referendum because of the constitutional implications that it has - which were not part of the 2016 refendum.
It takes a long deep breath to change your mind, doesn`t it.
Inte
The other thing which has blindsided me is the easy dismissal by many on here of the fact that our Prime Minister is expected to lie to obtain his political ends and is applauded for doing so after the fact.
What would have imperilled the Union would have been No Deal and a hard border in Ireland, the Boris Deal is the only way to avoid No Deal and take GB out of the EU, the single market and the customs union
Your incorrect analysis remains incorrect.
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Unless you keep the whole UK in the Single Market and Customs Union, ie no Brexit at all really, there was always going to be some special arrangements for NI to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland once GB left the EU and the single market and customs union
That's as maybe. But by your very own language you accept that the Union has become less tangible than previously. That, as I mentioned in my post, has been very surprising. From Corbyn perhaps but from a Conservative Prime Minister, I must say I was surprised.
Not presumably as surprised as you finding out that Boris didn't after all refuse to send a letter to the EU in order to lead the Conservatives victoriously into opposition, but surprised nevertheless.
The bitter irony is that remainers are the ones labelled as traitors.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave - nothing more. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
Can Norway make trade deals around the world as an independent country?
It actually would. She's been a form no pretending to be a maybe for so long, actually changing position would be crucial
I am not sure it is that significant. Backing the bill on second reading is the easy bit. My guess is quite a few Labour MPs will do that. It's a free hit. The third reading vote will be the one that matters because it will be on the post-scrutiny, final form of the legislation.
Perhaps, though its more than I'd have expected from her.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
100% agreed. That is two very significant changes from Saturday to now and it would be inappropriate not to demonstrate to the letters recipients whether or not there is an agreement in principle with a meaningful vote.
Against that, you have to put an explicit decision of the House not to give approval until the legislation has passed. Very difficult to see the rule being broken on that basis.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
Sound suggestions. We should get on and do just what they suggested.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
Is the Norway option specifically excluded ? The opposition has the numbers to force an election. If an election was forced in the transition period then Norway could replace the future relationship proposed FTA should the Gov't at the time decide to do so, No ?
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
100% agreed. That is two very significant changes from Saturday to now and it would be inappropriate not to demonstrate to the letters recipients whether or not there is an agreement in principle with a meaningful vote.
Against that, you have to put an explicit decision of the House not to give approval until the legislation has passed. Very difficult to see the rule being broken on that basis.
Should be possible to come up with a formulation that says "we agree to this in principle, now pass the legislation" - the amended version on Saturday didn't even agree in principle.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave - nothing more. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
You know multiple of those quotes are discredited fake news?
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
Sound suggestions. We should get on and do just what they suggested.
That would have been great. Sadly the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and such a thing it not seen as pure enough.
Oh dear I can see Sammy Wilson’s head about to explode .
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Far too much is being made of votes for a second reading . It means bugger all until we see what happens with amendments.
Some might support the second reading and then ditch support afterwards .
Is that really true, given that the deal itself is not open to being amended. All the MPs will know that.
An MP can say I supported a second reading and then wanted to agree to certain amendments so I then would be happy with voting yes on the third reading .
Some amendments aren’t wrecking ones , but the government playing its martyr role might say they are and yank the bill .
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
And as to the NI stuff. All of what you say does not alter the fact that you yourself have accepted the divergence of GB and NI as evidenced by your own post.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
Sound suggestions. We should get on and do just what they suggested.
That would have been great. Sadly the lunatics have taken over the asylum, and such a thing it not seen as pure enough.
I'd argue this option is not on the table right now because the majority opposition as it is now is too disunited and still fighting the leave/remain war. It's a shift we might see in transition though. Tories clearly want some sort of Canada harder relationship.
Far too much is being made of votes for a second reading . It means bugger all until we see what happens with amendments.
Some might support the second reading and then ditch support afterwards .
Is that really true, given that the deal itself is not open to being amended. All the MPs will know that.
The very first step is for parliament to vote in favour of something.
Once they have, dynamics will shift - and there really is no practical way now to lock in a particular outcome for the long-term relationship with the EU. A GE will have to happen before that can be settled.
Comments
You, for example, are already creating a division between GB and NI in your own language "...take GB out of the EU..."
So you are living proof, as evidenced by your very own actions, that the Union is less strong than it was before Boris' deal.
Boris is Scott Morrison to Starmer's Bill Shorten
Ok - I accept this. But do you, as a brexiter, accept that:
1) May`s deal protected the union more than Boris`s does,
2) the general prinicple that any major consititutional change (as implied by Boris`s deal) should be subject to a referendum - and the 2016 referendum doesn`t cover this?
Betfair have a "Ref2 in 2020?" market up and "No" can be backed at around 1.5.
Looks a bargain. 1 in 3 chance of Ref2 happening? No way. Not for me.
The Boris deal puts consent back in the hands of Northern Ireland, a principle at the heart of the GFA. It also gives NI a privileged position that neither GB or ROI gets, which reduces the probability of reunification.
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1186248269183275011
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1186245939692036096
1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered.
2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
Yes, GB may be flying out of the EU but NI is left in the departure lounge.
Not presumably as surprised as you finding out that Boris didn't after all refuse to send a letter to the EU in order to lead the Conservatives victoriously into opposition, but surprised nevertheless.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
An extension, if offered, has to be accepted.
The UK was a constitutional monarchy with a representative government (albeit on a restricted franchise)
She was a leaning-no in most peoples' lists - if everyone up to her votes yes it'll be a 25-30 majority.
The numbers aren't really interesting now though, they're over the line. It's all about wrecking amendments now.
Brexit must happen, but if it turns out to be as shit as expected, we would like a mechanism to turn back the clock, and severely punish the *&^%ards that pursued it.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
Suppose you are a manufacturer in Northern Ireland and you have an interest in a new EU regulation that might affect you. Under Johnson's deal politicians in London can not help you. Politicians in Belfast could take you out of all EU regulations in four years, but that's an extreme step for one issue. So you would look to Dublin for politicians there to represent your interests in Brussels.
It completely changes the orientation of Northern Irish politics on matters relating to the EU from their own MEPs, or the UK Prime Minister in London, to the Irish Taoiseach and government in Dublin. And then people might reasonably wonder why they do not have a vote in electing Irish MEPs in Brussels, or in electing the Dáil in Dublin.
If/when the UK does agree one, what "border" would exist between NI and GB?
As someone clever once said: Democracy is the theory that people should get what they want - and they should get it good and hard.
Most governments at most times in the past would have very quickly offered such a compromise, probably before the debate on Saturday. It does this government no credit that it is unwilling to do so.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
Depends on your perspective. In Naples, for instance, Napoleon was seen as on the side of freedom from autocratic rule - see the Parthenopean Republic - and the English, very specifically Nelson, as on the side of the autocrats. He is remembered as having said that those fighting for freedom against the Bourbons would be crushed as absolutely as Irish rebels. And they were - which is one reason why one of the main streets in Naples is named after one of the rebels hanged by the English.
The English like to think of themselves as being on the side of freedom. The facts show a much more complicated picture.
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
i) We had a vote to leave the EU
ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU.
iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation.
iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition.
v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship.
The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do.
And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market"
Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market"
Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing"
Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people"
Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK"
Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave - nothing more. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
I think that it can, but has to accept EU free movement - but I`m not sure about this.
Some might support the second reading and then ditch support afterwards .
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1186250252191457280
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
https://medium.com/@jamesforward/a-rebuttal-to-open-britain-vote-leave-never-promised-to-remain-in-the-single-market-85a0778c75a9
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Some amendments aren’t wrecking ones , but the government playing its martyr role might say they are and yank the bill .
Once they have, dynamics will shift - and there really is no practical way now to lock in a particular outcome for the long-term relationship with the EU. A GE will have to happen before that can be settled.