He didn't give the EU everything it wanted. It got some of what it wanted and means that NI can unilaterally exit the arrangements on a simple majority basis something we were assured was impossible when we were talking about the backstop as 'a backstop with an exit is no backstop'.
NI arrangements are devolved to NI's control and the rest of the UK leaves. Quite satisfactory IMHO.
Nope, we were never assured that. No-one ever asked. When I suggested it on here, you thought it was outrageous - a majority inflicting its wishes on a minority to deny that minority the right to vote for the people making its laws. I am glad you changed your mind and I am glad that Johnson did. But the EU now has everything it could ever have wanted - a de facto permanent solution to the Irish border issue in all circumstances. And it got it because Johnson caved because he had set himself an arbitrary deadline and prioritised that over remianing true to the assurances he had given to the DUP.
You are wrong and I have addressed this to you directly repeatedly.
I was quite explicit that a majority electing to enter a backstop with no unilateral exit would be unacceptable. It would mean that in the future even if a majority of NI wanted the backstop to end then they would have no way to exit it. That to permanently deprive a minority of their vote is unacceptable, we have ongoing elections every few years and one vote now can not determine the future.
There is nothing de facto permanent now. If a majority in NI elects a majority in Stormont to end the arrangements then after a notice period the arrangements will end. That is satisfactory to me and is something I repeatedly suggested. I said all along ongoing consent was necessary and that eg a Norwegian style solution is acceptable because Norway can unilaterally exit the arrangements if they ever choose to do so.
I really wish I knew how to search the PB archive. I would have you bang to rights. But never mind!
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
They've granted Boris a face-saving formula, certainly. In every other respect, the deal he's signed up to bears no resemblance whatever to what he insisted just a few days' previously was his final offer, and he's completely caved in on everything else he criticised May's deal for. But if you want to believe it's a great victory, that's great. It's certainly massively better than crashing out in chaos.
Ironically the poll was sponsored by Angus Robertson's pro-Indy outfit.
The extremes haven't changed. That's what the figures were pret IndyRef. 35% dedicated unionists, 25% dedicated Indynistas.
The question is what's happened in the middle.
Fair question. But I don't think it is sufficiently appreciated that Scottish voters are quite capable of thinking that Boris/Brexit is crass and that Nicola/IndyRef is a bore, at the same time. How this tension plays out in a GE we may shortly find out. But it is not the SNP slam-dunk that many seem to assume.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
They could repeat the formula of the March extension. A short one if the deal goes through or a longer one to facilitate a referendum.
A longer one would surely facilitate an election.
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
If I were to take the view that Boris Johnson really believed the DUP would eventually support his latest effort, the argument would run that whereas they didn't literally sign the Good Friday Agreement (was that provocatively named or what?) they nonetheless came to accept it in practice and they can always be relied on to swallow anything if they're chucked a big enough bung. But having Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian and Bavarian customs officials working in Northern Irish ports attending mass, deciding whether tariffs ought to be paid on shipments entering Antrim from England and Scotland and Wales, and then going to confession afterwards, is something they can't possibly support either on paper or in practice. Any DUP leader who even considered it would become a "Lundy".
A mate of mine is working for a large metropolitan council on their Brexit arrangements, and is in constant contact with bods in central government. He says the working assumption is a January election. Early January, 8th, 10th, something like that.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Nobody is going to trigger an election before Christmas for a vote after Christmas. That would be madness! If there's an election it will be in December no later than the 19th or it will be triggered in January which means we must have a vote no earlier than February.
An election on 23rd or 30th January might be possible. Dissolution before Christmas.
I just said I can't see anyone voting to trigger an election campaign to occur over Christmas.
Ironically the poll was sponsored by Angus Robertson's pro-Indy outfit.
The extremes haven't changed. That's what the figures were pret IndyRef. 35% dedicated unionists, 25% dedicated Indynistas.
The question is what's happened in the middle.
Fair question. But I don't think it is sufficiently appreciated that Scottish voters are quite capable of thinking that Boris/Brexit is crass and that Nicola/IndyRef is a bore, at the same time. How this tension plays out in a GE we may shortly find out. But it is not the SNP slam-dunk that many seem to assume.
This poll does seem to provide evidence that the SNP obsession with Independence over everything else is turning Scots off. I know my Scots wife really loses her patience whenever Blackford appears and she is very mild mannered normallly
A mate of mine is working for a large metropolitan council on their Brexit arrangements, and is in constant contact with bods in central government. He says the working assumption is a January election. Early January, 8th, 10th, something like that.
Not. Going. To. Happen.
Nobody is going to trigger an election before Christmas for a vote after Christmas. That would be madness! If there's an election it will be in December no later than the 19th or it will be triggered in January which means we must have a vote no earlier than February.
An election on 23rd or 30th January might be possible. Dissolution before Christmas.
I just said I can't see anyone voting to trigger an election campaign to occur over Christmas.
But campaigning would not really get under way ontil post Christmas.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
He didn't give the EU everything it wanted. It got some of what it wanted and means that NI can unilaterally exit the arrangements on a simple majority basis something we were assured was impossible when we were talking about the backstop as 'a backstop with an exit is no backstop'.
NI arrangements are devolved to NI's control and the rest of the UK leaves. Quite satisfactory IMHO.
Nope, we were never assured that. No-one ever asked. When I suggested it on here, you thought it was outrageous - a majority inflicting its wishes on a minority to deny that minority the right to vote for the people making its laws. I am glad you changed your mind and I am glad that Johnson did. But the EU now has everything it could ever have wanted - a de facto permanent solution to the Irish border issue in all circumstances. And it got it because Johnson caved because he had set himself an arbitrary deadline and prioritised that over remianing true to the assurances he had given to the DUP.
You are wrong and I have addressed this to you directly repeatedly.
I was quite explicit that a majority electing to enter a backstop with no unilateral exit would be unacceptable. It would mean that in the future even if a majority of NI wanted the backstop to end then they would have no way to exit it. That to permanently deprive a minority of their vote is unacceptable, we have ongoing elections every few years and one vote now can not determine the future.
There is nothing de facto permanent now. If a majority in NI elects a majority in Stormont to end the arrangements then after a notice period the arrangements will end. That is satisfactory to me and is something I repeatedly suggested. I said all along ongoing consent was necessary and that eg a Norwegian style solution is acceptable because Norway can unilaterally exit the arrangements if they ever choose to do so.
I really wish I knew how to search the PB archive. I would have you bang to rights. But never mind!
You're wrong I've been consistent all along. I know my own mind thank you very much.
My issue was never one side losing an election, I'm OK with that. I am not OK with elections being cancelled. I specifically made the point all along about elections.
If a majority of Stormont every 4 years opts to continue the arrangements then that is the voter's choice. Not yours, not mine, not Brussels but the voters of NI.
If a majority of Stormont is elected to end the arrangements then they end. So be it. The voters decide, that was my principle, it must be up to the voters at elections.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
I agree, its a shame they never felt the could compromise sooner with TM. Its ridiculous it took this long for the consent issue to be dealt with when it was such an obvious compromise.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
Which rules have been broken?
PB rules are unwritten. I would suggest you use your common sense, but that appears to be lacking.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
Which rules have been broken?
I didn't say that any have; simply that appealing to "freedom of speech" doesn't apply when you're a guest on someone else's website.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
They've granted Boris a face-saving formula, certainly. In every other respect, the deal he's signed up to bears no resemblance whatever to what he insisted just a few days' previously was his final offer, and he's completely caved in on everything else he criticised May's deal for. But if you want to believe it's a great victory, that's great. It's certainly massively better than crashing out in chaos.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
The Tories and SNP have effectively worked together to cook Labour's goose before - Indyref 1 was a good example.
1979, also.
I daresay that there would be an attempt by Labour types to say the Nats had again conspired to sustain the evil Tories, but difficult to construct that around what is effectively a VONC (even from themselves) in Her Maj's Most Loyal Opposition.
But let me ask the question again - how does Boris introduce a bill that changes the FTPA to allow an election.
Hint - No changes to the FTPA were mentioned in the Queen's speech.
Does a bill have to be explicitly mentioned in the queens speech? I thought the government was at liberty to table any bill it wants by virtue of this proviso
Members of the House of Commons.
Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.
Other measures will be laid before you.
They don't have to table what's in the queen's speech and they may table whatever they like that isn't in it - except that before they're introduced government bills get scrutinised for whether they affect the monarch or Prince of Wales's interests, and if they do they need queen's or prince's consent.
To judge by what Laura Kuenssberg is saying, Dominic Cummings ("a No. 10 source") is already admitting that the queen's speech - full of legislative proposals as it was described only a week ago - didn't contain anything of much importance, the line being that if the WAB doesn't go through then there ought to be a general election because the government hasn't got any other legislative business in the pipeline that is worth proceeding with. I have to wonder what contortions a person would have to twist themselves into to conclude that such a government of buffoons is fit to remain in office.
As Churchill might have said "The Conservative clown troupe is the worst to form a Government, apart from all those other clown troupes who might form one...."
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
I agree, its a shame they never felt the could compromise sooner with TM. Its ridiculous it took this long for the consent issue to be dealt with when it was such an obvious compromise.
Wasn't the issue the border in the Irish Sea, which the DUP couldn't accept - and she needed them for her majority. Boris lost the majority, so another ten gone maybe doesn't matter in his mind. He got a bounce in the polls and probably thought he could get an election, win a majority and all would be well.
He didn't give the EU everything it wanted. It got some of what it wanted and means that NI can unilaterally exit the arrangements on a simple majority basis something we were assured was impossible when we were talking about the backstop as 'a backstop with an exit is no backstop'.
NI arrangements are devolved to NI's control and the rest of the UK leaves. Quite satisfactory IMHO.
Nope, we were never assured that. No-one ever asked. When I suggested it on here, you thought it was outrageous - a majority inflicting its wishes on a minority to deny that minority the right to vote for the people making its laws. I am glad you changed your mind and I am glad that Johnson did. But the EU now has everything it could ever have wanted - a de facto permanent solution to the Irish border issue in all circumstances. And it got it because Johnson caved because he had set himself an arbitrary deadline and prioritised that over remianing true to the assurances he had given to the DUP.
You are wrong and I have addressed this to you directly repeatedly.
I was quite explicit that a majority electing to enter a backstop with no unilateral exit would be unacceptable. It would mean that in the future even if a majority of NI wanted the backstop to end then they would have no way to exit it. That to permanently deprive a minority of their vote is unacceptable, we have ongoing elections every few years and one vote now can not determine the future.
There is nothing de facto permanent now. If aif they ever choose to do so.
I really wish I knew how to search the PB archive. I would have you bang to rights. But never mind!
You're wrong I've been consistent all along. I know my own mind thank you very much.
My issue was never one side losing an election, I'm OK with that. I am not OK with elections being cancelled. I specifically made the point all along about elections.
If a majority of Stormont every 4 years opts to continue the arrangements then that is the voter's choice. Not yours, not mine, not Brussels but the voters of NI.
If a majority of Stormont is elected to end the arrangements then they end. So be it. The voters decide, that was my principle, it must be up to the voters at elections.
As I say, if only I knew how to search ... But it is no big deal. As Richard N says, if you wish to believe the EU has compromised in a meaningful way, so be it!
As I say, if only I knew how to search ... But it is no big deal. As Richard N says, if you wish to believe the EU has compromised in a meaningful way, so be it!
My concerns have been met. I had a principled and clear objection that the voters must decide. That in the backstop we would be unable to vote and unable to unilaterally exit. Was I not entirely and 100% consistent on that?
The consent mechanism means going forward the voters decide. I am content with that. If the voters want this to continue then let them do so, but then if the voters change their minds let them end it. I always said there must be an exit mechanism that could be triggered by voters and now there is one! Previously there was not!
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
I agree, its a shame they never felt the could compromise sooner with TM. Its ridiculous it took this long for the consent issue to be dealt with when it was such an obvious compromise.
Wasn't the issue the border in the Irish Sea, which the DUP couldn't accept - and she needed them for her majority. Boris lost the majority, so another ten gone maybe doesn't matter in his mind. He got a bounce in the polls and probably thought he could get an election, win a majority and all would be well.
Except TM singularly failed to carry the DUP didn't she?
Boris has at least squared off consent for Stormont, which is more than TM ever got!
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
Which rules have been broken?
PB rules are unwritten. I would suggest you use your common sense, but that appears to be lacking.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
This looks like good politics by Labour: table a series of reasonable-sounding amendments on relatively minor points, in order to support the argument that, even for those who support the bill in principle, more time is needed for parliament to consider it in detail:
Ironically the poll was sponsored by Angus Robertson's pro-Indy outfit.
The extremes haven't changed. That's what the figures were pret IndyRef. 35% dedicated unionists, 25% dedicated Indynistas.
The question is what's happened in the middle.
Fair question. But I don't think it is sufficiently appreciated that Scottish voters are quite capable of thinking that Boris/Brexit is crass and that Nicola/IndyRef is a bore, at the same time. How this tension plays out in a GE we may shortly find out. But it is not the SNP slam-dunk that many seem to assume.
This poll does seem to provide evidence that the SNP obsession with Independence over everything else is turning Scots off. I know my Scots wife really loses her patience whenever Blackford appears and she is very mild mannered normallly
We also have the problem that a lot of decision making is being held till after the Bsrexit decision - the cat is still in the box and still in two states. It will change when Mr Johnson or his replacement either revokes or leaves with ot without a deal and collapses the probability function - till then prediction seems a chancy business, if I may put it that way.
An extension to January 31st is automatically accepted if the EU offer it - so why would they offer anything else.
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Deal would get pulled rather than enable the ridiculous grandstanding of remainers in parliament.
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
This looks like good politics by Labour: table a series of reasonable-sounding amendments on relatively minor points, in order to support the argument that, even for those who support the bill in principle, more time is needed for parliament to consider it in detail:
This looks like good politics by Labour: table a series of reasonable-sounding amendments on relatively minor points, in order to support the argument that, even for those who support the bill in principle, more time is needed for parliament to consider it in detail:
To be fair a 100 page bill probably does need some amending !
Yep, especially one which interacts with a whole bunch of other UK and EU law. That's why Theresa May originally scheduled several months between agreeing a deal with the EU and the target exit date.
I am sure that many MPs today will feel empathy for members of the Reichstag facing pressure to pass Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933.
What is wrong with you.
Time is coming for the moderators to consider your constant references to Hitler.
I remember the immediate aftermath of the concentration camps as a child and it is seared into my memory. Your comments are unnecessary
Your respect for free expression of opinion is clearly pretty limited.
You do have free expression of opinion insofar as you can host your own site and put your own opinions on it. But when you're posting on someone else's site, you play by their rules.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
The Tories and SNP have effectively worked together to cook Labour's goose before - Indyref 1 was a good example.
1979, also.
I daresay that there would be an attempt by Labour types to say the Nats had again conspired to sustain the evil Tories, but difficult to construct that around what is effectively a VONC (even from themselves) in Her Maj's Most Loyal Opposition.
But let me ask the question again - how does Boris introduce a bill that changes the FTPA to allow an election.
Hint - No changes to the FTPA were mentioned in the Queen's speech.
Does a bill have to be explicitly mentioned in the queens speech? I thought the government was at liberty to table any bill it wants by virtue of this proviso
Members of the House of Commons.
Estimates for the public services will be laid before you.
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons.
Other measures will be laid before you.
They don't have to table what's in the queen's speech and they may table whatever they like that isn't in it - except that before they're introduced government bills get scrutinised for whether they affect the monarch or Prince of Wales's interests, and if they do they need queen's or prince's consent.
To judge by what Laura Kuenssberg is saying, Dominic Cummings ("a No. 10 source") is already admitting that the queen's speech - full of legislative proposals as it was described only a week ago - didn't contain anything of much importance, the line being that if the WAB doesn't go through then there ought to be a general election because the government hasn't got any other legislative business in the pipeline that is worth proceeding with. I have to wonder what contortions a person would have to twist themselves into to conclude that such a government of buffoons is fit to remain in office.
As Churchill might have said "The Conservative clown troupe is the worst to form a Government, apart from all those other clown troupes who might form one...."
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
They haven't been dumped. They have been privileged with a special situation that benefits from both the UK's Brexit and ROI's EU membership. If they had been dumped, David Trimble would not be supportive of it.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
This looks like good politics by Labour: table a series of reasonable-sounding amendments on relatively minor points, in order to support the argument that, even for those who support the bill in principle, more time is needed for parliament to consider it in detail:
To be fair a 100 page bill probably does need some amending !
Yep, especially one which interacts with a whole bunch of other UK and EU law. That's why Theresa May originally scheduled several months between agreeing a deal with the EU and the target exit date.
Yep. Bloke on the radio this morning saying that this consisted of references to previous (longer) documents so a typical clause of the WAB might be:
Para 2(ii): To amend 2016 EC/93749/1/P Section II Para 3(iii) incorporating 2017 EC/63783/2/P Section IV Para 4(iv) such that the contingent meaning will have the effect on said prior document and thereby to replace "and" with "but".
Ironically the poll was sponsored by Angus Robertson's pro-Indy outfit.
The extremes haven't changed. That's what the figures were pret IndyRef. 35% dedicated unionists, 25% dedicated Indynistas.
The question is what's happened in the middle.
Fair question. But I don't think it is sufficiently appreciated that Scottish voters are quite capable of thinking that Boris/Brexit is crass and that Nicola/IndyRef is a bore, at the same time. How this tension plays out in a GE we may shortly find out. But it is not the SNP slam-dunk that many seem to assume.
This poll does seem to provide evidence that the SNP obsession with Independence over everything else is turning Scots off. I know my Scots wife really loses her patience whenever Blackford appears and she is very mild mannered normallly
We also have the problem that a lot of decision making is being held till after the Bsrexit decision - the cat is still in the box and still in two states. It will change when Mr Johnson or his replacement either revokes or leaves with ot without a deal and collapses the probability function - till then prediction seems a chancy business, if I may put it that way.
I think that's fair comment. And there remain two other factors after the Brexit outcome and GE - the Salmond trial and 2021 SP election results. Everything still very contingent.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
Checks between London and the Home Counties would be a mad idea. I know the instruction has gone out to "avoid Brexit at all costs" Remainers to blow up minor issues, but you could at least be semi-plausible in your arguments. This arch-unionist position Remainers suddenly have, above and beyond that of the lead Unionist in the GFA negotiations, is highly amusing.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
Thats not what NI did......
No, they got a system of no checks on their land borders and some checks on their sea borders. Just like Scotland and Wales will have.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
Checks between London and the Home Counties would be a mad idea. I know the instruction has gone out to "avoid Brexit at all costs" Remainers to blow up minor issues, but you could at least be semi-plausible in your arguments. This arch-unionist position Remainers suddenly have, above and beyond that of the lead Unionist in the GFA negotiations, is highly amusing.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
I agree, its a shame they never felt the could compromise sooner with TM. Its ridiculous it took this long for the consent issue to be dealt with when it was such an obvious compromise.
Wasn't the issue the border in the Irish Sea, which the DUP couldn't accept - and she needed them for her majority. Boris lost the majority, so another ten gone maybe doesn't matter in his mind. He got a bounce in the polls and probably thought he could get an election, win a majority and all would be well.
That's right. Boris has consented to a border in the Irish Sea, but has enshrined consent. Essentially, so long as about 10-15% of unionists continue to back the frontstop, then Northern Ireland remains part of the EU customs Union.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
A unilateral exit mechanism for the UK as a whole (52% Leave) is clearly a different thing for the EU than one for NI-only (56% Remain). You can see why the EU felt they could compromise.
I agree, its a shame they never felt the could compromise sooner with TM. Its ridiculous it took this long for the consent issue to be dealt with when it was such an obvious compromise.
Wasn't the issue the border in the Irish Sea, which the DUP couldn't accept - and she needed them for her majority. Boris lost the majority, so another ten gone maybe doesn't matter in his mind. He got a bounce in the polls and probably thought he could get an election, win a majority and all would be well.
That's right. Boris has consented to a border in the Irish Sea, but has enshrined consent. Essentially, so long as about 10-15% of unionists continue to back the frontstop, then Northern Ireland remains part of the EU customs Union.
He also got NI to benefit from FTAs signed with non-EU countries, which is a big competitive advantage over ROI and will reap big economic returns to NI. Belfast will boom in the next ten years.
What's Lady Sylvia Hermon's opinion on the deal? She seems quite sceptical of it?
That's right. She was happy with the May deal, but is unhappy with this. She'll vote against.
I mean look. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Boris has seriously impinged upon an historic settlement and opened the way for a more aligned island of Ireland and a perceived route to unification.
That's pretty bloody big news. Plenty of Leavers, ERGers, and the like shrug their shoulders and say "scrub the "and Unionist" bit". But it is a very important step that Boris has taken and it is no surprise that people are digesting it and reacting.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
Checks between London and the Home Counties would be a mad idea. I know the instruction has gone out to "avoid Brexit at all costs" Remainers to blow up minor issues, but you could at least be semi-plausible in your arguments. This arch-unionist position Remainers suddenly have, above and beyond that of the lead Unionist in the GFA negotiations, is highly amusing.
I am a (admittedly very) reluctant supporter for a Brexit deal. Longer term without our Scottish friends in parliament the values of London are not going to be heard in a parliament of the English shires and towns. We shall need more powers devolved.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
What's Lady Sylvia Hermon's opinion on the deal? She seems quite sceptical of it?
That's right. She was happy with the May deal, but is unhappy with this. She'll vote against.
I mean look. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Boris has seriously impinged upon an historic settlement and opened the way for a more aligned island of Ireland and a perceived route to unification.
That's pretty bloody big news. Plenty of Leavers, ERGers, and the like shrug their shoulders and say "scrub the "and Unionist" bit. But it is a very important step that Boris has taken and it is no surprise that people are digesting it and reacting.
This is nonsense. This deal actually moves NI out of alignment with the ROI on tariffs, something that was not the case in the EU. It effectively continues the thinking of the GFA for being British constitutionally and legally, but with some nods of the head to its Irish connections and history on administrative matters.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
It's a unilateral exit right for Northern Ireland in the correct sense that if the NI Assembly votes for it neither the EU, nor Ireland, can do anything to stop it.
I can envisage some unlikely scenarios in which there would be the votes for it - if suppose there were changes to EU law that impacted disproportionately on Northern Ireland to such an (albeit unlikely) extent that the cross-community Alliance party joined with Unionists in voting to leave the arrangements. There are only 39 Nationalist MLAs at present, out of the 90, not enough to block the vote on their own.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
London is not a country no matter how much idiots on here pretend AND WOULD NOT LAST 5 MINUTES ONCE IT DID NOT HAVE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY FUNNELLING RESOURCES AND MONEY INTO IT.
Damn right.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
y.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
Checks between London and the Home Counties would be a mad idea. I know the instruction has gone out to "avoid Brexit at all costs" Remainers to blow up minor issues, but you could at least be semi-plausible in your arguments. This arch-unionist position Remainers suddenly have, above and beyond that of the lead Unionist in the GFA negotiations, is highly amusing.
I am a (admittedly very) reluctant supporter for a Brexit deal. Longer term without our Scottish friends in parliament the values of London are not going to be heard in a parliament of the English shires and towns. We shall need more powers devolved.
I am a born and bred Londoner. We have plenty of autonomy already and I don't particularly want to be ruled by Corbynistas in the future, so the current balance between the GLA and Westminster is fine.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
Yes.
Thank you for taking the trouble to answer! Very interesting.
What's Lady Sylvia Hermon's opinion on the deal? She seems quite sceptical of it?
That's right. She was happy with the May deal, but is unhappy with this. She'll vote against.
I mean look. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Boris has seriously impinged upon an historic settlement and opened the way for a more aligned island of Ireland and a perceived route to unification.
That's pretty bloody big news. Plenty of Leavers, ERGers, and the like shrug their shoulders and say "scrub the "and Unionist" bit. But it is a very important step that Boris has taken and it is no surprise that people are digesting it and reacting.
This is nonsense. This deal actually moves NI out of alignment with the ROI on tariffs, something that was not the case in the EU. It effectively continues the thinking of the GFA for being British constitutionally and legally, but with some nods of the head to its Irish connections and history on administrative matters.
Is David Trimble no longer a unionist?
Nods of the head, you say? That all?
Here's a good article for example (out of very many indeed) that explains things quite well.
Show me a serious commentator who thinks otherwise. Even the Conservative Party and our very own Borisite @HYUFD are using the terms "GB and NI" to describe the new situation.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.
Labour are in danger of turning brexit into their poll tax
This is exactly backwards
Brexit is BoZo's poll tax.
He owns it, 100%. If it happens (I think it will), he will own the subsequent fall out.
Brexit will be at least as despised as the Poll tax, and the Tories will suffer for it.
It may and it may not. We cannot know how this pans out but we must leave and this is the deal that stops no deal
Apart from Clause 30.
You are not over the detail on this blinded by your Tory love.
To me that Clause if not amended makes a Tory No Deal almost certain at the end of 2020.
I keep asking this question but keep getting ignored. Clause 30 seems little different to clause 50(3) in operation.
If in the future Parliament doesn't wish us to leave without an extension then what prevents Parliament from passing a future Benn Act to demand an extension?
And if in the future Parliament doesn't want to demand an extension then Clause 30 is moot.
So what's the big deal?
The risk is that the Benn-Burt Act cane about because Parliament was able to control the agenda. There are lots of reasons - election, new Speaker, Tory unity - why this may not be possible in future
Speaker could be a change although I suspect if we ended up in similar situation then a future Speaker will folow Bercow's precedent since the precedent has now been set.
But for elections and Tory unity it seems a moot point. If a future election or Tory unity means that there's a majority against an enforced extension then that will exist regardess of Clause 30 or a vote being scheduled. If in future there's a majority for Parliament enforcing an extension onto the executive then that too will exist regardless of Clause 30.
What matter surely is the numbers in Parliament not Clause 30. And if the numbers match now an extension will be enforced, if the numbers aren't there to force an extension they won't be there either way [though I highly doubt the executive would seek to not extend if negotiations are still ongoing and would only seek not to if talks have broken down].
True, but if it is in legislation then the new majority government will need to pass a bills amending this - which would absolutely highlight the discussion and issue vs letting it happen by default.
From an opposition perspective, this is a very sensible amendment to push.
Er, well, yes, now you mention it. If Mr Johnson and the Tories are willing to dump a part of the UK which is more British than the British, and into which vast sums of money, blood and political credit have been poured, then where do we stop?
Ideally M25, will take north/south circular if thats all thats on offer. Rest of UK/England can keep Westminster if they like.
Checks between London and the Home Counties would be a mad idea. I know the instruction has gone out to "avoid Brexit at all costs" Remainers to blow up minor issues, but you could at least be semi-plausible in your arguments. This arch-unionist position Remainers suddenly have, above and beyond that of the lead Unionist in the GFA negotiations, is highly amusing.
I am a (admittedly very) reluctant supporter for a Brexit deal. Longer term without our Scottish friends in parliament the values of London are not going to be heard in a parliament of the English shires and towns. We shall need more powers devolved.
I am a born and bred Londoner. We have plenty of autonomy already and I don't particularly want to be ruled by Corbynistas in the future, so the current balance between the GLA and Westminster is fine.
If the future city state of London claims a hinterland roughly coterminous with the Thames watershed/areas where large percentages commute into London, then the political balance of the whole would not be tilted in favour of the Corbynistas.
Not the City of London... Not Greater London.. I give you.. ULTRA London!
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
I would love to see Bercow refuse to allow the bill to come back...
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?
What's Lady Sylvia Hermon's opinion on the deal? She seems quite sceptical of it?
That's right. She was happy with the May deal, but is unhappy with this. She'll vote against.
I mean look. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Boris has seriously impinged upon an historic settlement and opened the way for a more aligned island of Ireland and a perceived route to unification.
That's pretty bloody big news. Plenty of Leavers, ERGers, and the like shrug their shoulders and say "scrub the "and Unionist" bit". But it is a very important step that Boris has taken and it is no surprise that people are digesting it and reacting.
That's actually another reason why I hesitate to predict how Scots politics will develop, especially after (for instance) the fishing fleets transfer over to NI to keep in the EU - process in NI, drive to Dun Laoghaire or wherever, new superferries to Europe, no Dover queues!
How if the DUP vote against alongside the rest of the opposition?
If all Tories (and anti-no-deal recent ex-Tories) vote with the government then it only requires a handful of independents or Labour MPs to side with the government to see it home.
There were about 10 anti-no-deal recent ex-Tories who voted with Letwin on his MV amendment. If all of them (I think they include Bebb, Gauke, Clarke and one of the Hammonds) vote with the government on the programme motion - and everyone else votes the same way as on the Letwin amendment - then the government wins by 4.
On Topic I suspect the suggested rule that the Opposition must always agree to an election request still stands. The circumstances recently where an election was rejected under the guise of preventing no deal was unique.
Once we have either extended or exited that line falls away. I suspect the government if we get out soon will seek to let the dust settle and get an election next Spring, but the Opposition will have nowhere to hide by claiming it was due to preventing a no deal exit anymore.
I see we are in agreement. I expect an election on the 12th December.
Headmistresses nationwide say "no can do"...
I think the 19th is not logistically possible, the 5th is, and the 12th is marginal. I don't think this will be the chief determinant of the timing, so that's why I expect the 12th.
Johnson might even call it "glorious".
Called tomorrow an election not via a VoNC could be on November 28th
After tomorrow i think it's the December 5th if Boris calls it or 19th if via a VoNC.
Thanks to the 25 working day rules we rapidly enter Christmas and then rapidly hit Jan 9th due to bank holidays over Christmas.
An election campaign over Christmas would be an utter fiasco.
A VoNC anytime after this week makes it incredibly likely.
A Christmas election ain't gonna happen IMO. Nor one on 9 Jan, which would necessitate a farcical campaign when most of Britain is lying semi-comatose on the sofa watching reruns of Del Boy.
Agreed - there's no way that a campaign will be fought over the christmas break. If it isn't in November, it isn't going to be until late Feb, maybe March?
5th December is like the latest eariest date I think is still viable.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Dominic Grieve voting against the deal at both second reading and programme motion. So much for being against "no deal", he's got no credibility he is just against any Brexit not no deal.
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
The sad fact is that you have not threatened to kill people. The message that is being sent by allowing one solution for NI and not extending that to other parts of the UK if they desire is that the threats of violence work.
It's a fair point. Why should NI get a sweetheart deal and Scotland not?
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
It's also not unlike the deal the SNP suggested right at the start, in late 2016 IIRC (I have a feeling the Scottish Pmt also approved it, but can't remember the details).
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not often I agree with him but clearly Bozo has lied to the DUP.
And in terms of UK trade deals NI can’t take part unless that trade deal doesn’t conflict with the Irish protocol . So that will be never then !
The trade deals will just have exceptions for Northern Ireland on whichever changes to non-tariff barriers conflict. The tariff reductions will always apply, so that will be every FTA.
People only make compromises when there is a deadline approaching. The second the 31/10 becomes flexible everyone will get on their high horses and stop compromising and demand everyone else agrees with them just as everyone did under May.
This is fundamentally untrue. People make compromises and reach agreements when it is mutually beneficial to do so. Johnson compromised before a deadline because he is desperate to do Brexit, so it was beneficial for him to move to get this deal agreed. It was beneficial to the EU because it was from their point of view it is much better than what they had offered TM.
When there is a deadline approaching people start to make bad decisions. There is a lot of pressure to meet the deadline and not enough time to examine the implicatons of these "compromises".
The EU was adamant with TM there could be no unilateral exit. There is a unilateral exit now. The EU has compromised.
There isn't a unilateral exit - it requires a majority of NI votes and that will not occur. Unionists only have 40 of the 90 seats and that percentage is likely to drop over time not increase
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
That's democracy. If these arrangements are bad for NI then people opposing them can seek to get 46 seats plus.
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
So you would apply that to Scotland (and Wales, if they want)?
And London please!
Scotland, Wales and London are not being put inside some EU laws, so there is nothing of a scale needed to consent to.
If Scotland and Wales wish to rejoin the EU they should hold a referendum on exiting the UK then begin negotiations on accession to the EU.
But if it is good enough for NI why not us Scots? We DID vote against Brexit, you know.
Because the EU wanted NI. They've not asked for you guys.
Not yet, and that's another factor to contemplate - the dynamic changes when UK or rather GB leaves the EU.
Comments
But equally why would anyone push for an election immediately they could easily spend 2 weeks pulling Boris's deal apart line by line before calling such an election.
And such a delay moves it into early January which would do wonders for Boris.
Especially as the ties to GB will drop significantly over time - the VAT changes and paperwork alone will make buying things from Northern Ireland more of a hassle.
My issue was never one side losing an election, I'm OK with that. I am not OK with elections being cancelled. I specifically made the point all along about elections.
If a majority of Stormont every 4 years opts to continue the arrangements then that is the voter's choice. Not yours, not mine, not Brussels but the voters of NI.
If a majority of Stormont is elected to end the arrangements then they end. So be it. The voters decide, that was my principle, it must be up to the voters at elections.
Anything else puts vast numbers of their seats under threat
If they don't get 46 seats or more that is the choice of the voters of NI. I have no wish to impose upon or override the voters of NI, I respect them enough to make the decision theirs. This is their future, they can decide - unilaterally.
Boris lost the majority, so another ten gone maybe doesn't matter in his mind. He got a bounce in the polls and probably thought he could get an election, win a majority and all would be well.
The consent mechanism means going forward the voters decide. I am content with that. If the voters want this to continue then let them do so, but then if the voters change their minds let them end it. I always said there must be an exit mechanism that could be triggered by voters and now there is one! Previously there was not!
Boris has at least squared off consent for Stormont, which is more than TM ever got!
https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/1186654880943005700
Pull the bill and allow the SNP to submit the VoNC.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/10/20/time-critics-saw-boris-churchillian-figure/
https://twitter.com/britainelects?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Para 2(ii): To amend 2016 EC/93749/1/P Section II Para 3(iii) incorporating 2017 EC/63783/2/P Section IV Para 4(iv) such that the contingent meaning will have the effect on said prior document and thereby to replace "and" with "but".
https://twitter.com/oletwinofficial/status/1186659454118514690
Time for Mods to rake action if you cant drop the Hitler shite.
That's pretty bloody big news. Plenty of Leavers, ERGers, and the like shrug their shoulders and say "scrub the "and Unionist" bit". But it is a very important step that Boris has taken and it is no surprise that people are digesting it and reacting.
Is David Trimble no longer a unionist?
I can envisage some unlikely scenarios in which there would be the votes for it - if suppose there were changes to EU law that impacted disproportionately on Northern Ireland to such an (albeit unlikely) extent that the cross-community Alliance party joined with Unionists in voting to leave the arrangements. There are only 39 Nationalist MLAs at present, out of the 90, not enough to block the vote on their own.
If there's one thing history has taught us, it's that there's no such thing as a successful city state.
Here's a good article for example (out of very many indeed) that explains things quite well.
Show me a serious commentator who thinks otherwise. Even the Conservative Party and our very own Borisite @HYUFD are using the terms "GB and NI" to describe the new situation.
From an opposition perspective, this is a very sensible amendment to push.
Not the City of London... Not Greater London.. I give you.. ULTRA London!
https://twitter.com/GeorgeWParker/status/1186663898969264132
Joe Rogan vs Richard Dawkins
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_bN4spt3744
There were about 10 anti-no-deal recent ex-Tories who voted with Letwin on his MV amendment. If all of them (I think they include Bebb, Gauke, Clarke and one of the Hammonds) vote with the government on the programme motion - and everyone else votes the same way as on the Letwin amendment - then the government wins by 4.
Looks like it could be mighty close.
After that it's late February/early March.
I think it'll be 5th December.
Wales is different. It voted Leave.
But yeah Justin, leave the Hitler stuff out, you're not Ken Livingstone
Not often I agree with him but clearly Bozo has lied to the DUP.
And in terms of UK trade deals NI can’t take part unless that trade deal doesn’t conflict with the Irish protocol . So that will be never then !
Grieve should never get the whip restored after this, anyone who has lost the whip but votes for the deal should get the whip back.
Do you agree @Big_G_NorthWales ?
I'm not whinging here, so much as thinking out objectively some other ways in which the NI deal could affect politics in Scotland to add to the points made by Burgessian.