I'm a fierce critic of what Boris has done over the last 36 hours but Nicola would sieze on anything he did do or didn't do as strengthening the case for independence.
If powers move from the EU to the UK she will say it's an insult they haven't been devolved straight to Scotland. If they stay with the EU then she'll say it strengthens the case for Scotland to have independent representation in the EU.
The common theme is she doesn't like the UK.
The way things are going, she is going to be in good company.
There was a time when International Treaties were entirely a matter for the Royal Prerogative and didn't require any legislative consent on the part of Parliament. That idea was abandoned a long time ago as it was felt that secret (or public) treaties not written into UK domestic law was perhaps not a sound basis for convincing other countries that we would honour our commitments. Well now that Parliament is potentially on the verge of showing itself willing (if whipped successfully by the Govt) to not only overturn agreements signed with the support of previous Parliaments and Governments, but actually overturn an agreement they themselves had supported enthusiastically!
It could be noted that Treaties are still signed under the Royal Prerogative, not under the authority of Parliament. When the Queen is asked to sign this act into statute she will be effectively be breaking her personal commitment to other countries. For the first time ever. Probably not the way she wanted to go out.
First time ever? What about the Finance act 2013 that was mentioned earlier, which also broke an international agreement.
We must look like total imbeciles to the rest of the world right now. Good grief.
A world which has recently elected populists from Brazil to Mexico, Poland to the USA, India to the Philippines to South Africa and Greece?
We’ve agreed and signed a deal to much acclaim and boasting, won a huge majority off the back of it, and now we’ve decided it’s actually sh*t and thrown our toys out of the pram.
Populism has nothing to do with it. Boris’s “oven ready” Brexit was popular enough for him to win a 80-seat majority off the back of it. He’s now trashed his flagship policy. We look like imbeciles.
Boris won a majority on a commitment to regain our fishing waters and not to accept supreme EU law and if the EU refused not to extend the transition period, all that also in the winning 2019 Tory manifesto
Yes, we would regain our fishing waters and end the supremacy of EU law by passing the Withdrawal Agreement and “Getting Brexit Done”. The entire campaign was focused on Boris’s incredible deal to get Brexit done.
We’ve now decided said WA is in fact rubbish. He’s trashed his flagship policy. Thanks to your idiotic party we all look like total imbeciles.
You don't play Chess do you? You're thinking one move at a time.
I don't think there will be many people who supported Boris fully for what he was doing a year ago who feel imbecilic now.
They might not feel ibecillic but to the outside world we all look like imbeciles. It’s embarrassing.
No I think to the rest of the world the UK looks like its standing up for the UKs interests.
They may think we're going about it belligerently, but I don't think anyone will think "imbeciles".
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
You are imo misreading the politics. I will be astonished if Johnson takes us out of the SM onto basic WTO terms and risks a border in Ireland. There will be a trade deal agreed this year or a quasi extension labelled as a deal. I'm 90% certain of this.
90%?
You weren't saying 90% yesterday were you?
Well nothing outside the laws of physics or Trump Toast is more than 99%.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
We must look like total imbeciles to the rest of the world right now. Good grief.
A world which has recently elected populists from Brazil to Mexico, Poland to the USA, India to the Philippines to South Africa and Greece?
We’ve agreed and signed a deal to much acclaim and boasting, won a huge majority off the back of it, and now we’ve decided it’s actually sh*t and thrown our toys out of the pram.
Populism has nothing to do with it. Boris’s “oven ready” Brexit was popular enough for him to win a 80-seat majority off the back of it. He’s now trashed his flagship policy. We look like imbeciles.
At least one prominent poster has repeatedly criticised electoral systems which are more likely to lead to coalition governments than FPTP. The justification being that parties entering into a coalition ditch certain policies over which the electorate has no say.
In the last 3 days this government has ditched an important policy, over which the electorate has no say, and this is despite a solid majority brought about by FPTP.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
The rock and hard place Johnson sits between is this. How does he find the votes to put a deal with the EU into law?
We can assume that, in most cases, the Opposition will find fault with the specifics of the deal and vote against. In the case that the Opposition decide that the deal is worthy of support it is likely that this will trigger a challenge to Johnson's leadership - on the basis that he must have surrendered to Brussels to win the support of Remainers.
The ERG are likely to view any meaningful compromise with the EU as surrender, to which they would prefer No Deal.
The only way to win ERG support for a deal is to present it, at the last minute, as a victory over the EU and the Remainers. They have to be convinced that Johnson was not at all afraid of No Deal, and did not compromise in order to avoid it.
It's not the EU that Johnson has to convince with the No Deal rhetoric, to scare them into submission, it's the ERG who need to be convinced that the EU were cowed.
I'm not sure that the trick will work a second time. The ERG may drive us off the No Deal cliff even if Johnson doesn't want to.
Having given the ERG the draft of this bill it will be impossible for Johnson to row back from it. Today is one of the most significant days in modern British history. Our explicit rejection of international law is truly historic.
As I understand it the relevant sections only come into play if there isn't a deal, so the Bill could become law, and if the bluster works and wins ERG votes for the trade deal then it's of less immediate consequence.
That makes no difference - it is the fact that even proposed to draft such a thing that matters. That is what sends the signal that we do not give a d*mn.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
I think PT's deal prospect is 41%. "Australia" isn't a deal. The so-called Australia arrangement isn't what Australia has either, but never mind...
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
The rock and hard place Johnson sits between is this. How does he find the votes to put a deal with the EU into law?
We can assume that, in most cases, the Opposition will find fault with the specifics of the deal and vote against. In the case that the Opposition decide that the deal is worthy of support it is likely that this will trigger a challenge to Johnson's leadership - on the basis that he must have surrendered to Brussels to win the support of Remainers.
The ERG are likely to view any meaningful compromise with the EU as surrender, to which they would prefer No Deal.
The only way to win ERG support for a deal is to present it, at the last minute, as a victory over the EU and the Remainers. They have to be convinced that Johnson was not at all afraid of No Deal, and did not compromise in order to avoid it.
It's not the EU that Johnson has to convince with the No Deal rhetoric, to scare them into submission, it's the ERG who need to be convinced that the EU were cowed.
I'm not sure that the trick will work a second time. The ERG may drive us off the No Deal cliff even if Johnson doesn't want to.
Having given the ERG the draft of this bill it will be impossible for Johnson to row back from it. Today is one of the most significant days in modern British history. Our explicit rejection of international law is truly historic.
As I understand it the relevant sections only come into play if there isn't a deal, so the Bill could become law, and if the bluster works and wins ERG votes for the trade deal then it's of less immediate consequence.
Why would the ERG back a deal when they can have what has been put on offer today?
The German view seems to be that its sabre rattling for a domestic audience (particularly on the benches behind him) that has become increasingly unhappy with his struggling leadership, and brinkmanship to put pressure on the EU. I sense it is being called as a bluff.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
You are imo misreading the politics. I will be astonished if Johnson takes us out of the SM onto basic WTO terms and risks a border in Ireland. There will be a trade deal agreed this year or a quasi extension labelled as a deal. I'm 90% certain of this.
90%?
You weren't saying 90% yesterday were you?
Well nothing outside the laws of physics or Trump Toast is more than 99%.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
As being likely yes, but no deal is not as you put it a "Not Happening event".
Plus of course that's counting an "Australian-style deal" as being within the 80% . . . to most people until now "Australian-style deal" would have been counted as essentially No Deal.
We must look like total imbeciles to the rest of the world right now. Good grief.
A world which has recently elected populists from Brazil to Mexico, Poland to the USA, India to the Philippines to South Africa and Greece?
We’ve agreed and signed a deal to much acclaim and boasting, won a huge majority off the back of it, and now we’ve decided it’s actually sh*t and thrown our toys out of the pram.
Populism has nothing to do with it. Boris’s “oven ready” Brexit was popular enough for him to win a 80-seat majority off the back of it. He’s now trashed his flagship policy. We look like imbeciles.
At least one prominent poster has repeatedly criticised electoral systems which are more likely to lead to coalition governments than FPTP. The justification being that parties entering into a coalition ditch certain policies over which the electorate has no say.
In the last 3 days this government has ditched an important policy, over which the electorate has no say, and this is despite a solid majority brought about by FPTP.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The only way would be for this bill to fail, which in turn would collapse the Government.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
I think PT's deal prospect is 41%. "Australia" isn't a deal. The so-called Australia arrangement isn't what Australia has either, but never mind...
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
You've come along way from saying that the 'genius' of Boris's deal was that it solved the problem of the Irish border in a way that silly old Theresa never could.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
The rock and hard place Johnson sits between is this. How does he find the votes to put a deal with the EU into law?
We can assume that, in most cases, the Opposition will find fault with the specifics of the deal and vote against. In the case that the Opposition decide that the deal is worthy of support it is likely that this will trigger a challenge to Johnson's leadership - on the basis that he must have surrendered to Brussels to win the support of Remainers.
The ERG are likely to view any meaningful compromise with the EU as surrender, to which they would prefer No Deal.
The only way to win ERG support for a deal is to present it, at the last minute, as a victory over the EU and the Remainers. They have to be convinced that Johnson was not at all afraid of No Deal, and did not compromise in order to avoid it.
It's not the EU that Johnson has to convince with the No Deal rhetoric, to scare them into submission, it's the ERG who need to be convinced that the EU were cowed.
I'm not sure that the trick will work a second time. The ERG may drive us off the No Deal cliff even if Johnson doesn't want to.
Having given the ERG the draft of this bill it will be impossible for Johnson to row back from it. Today is one of the most significant days in modern British history. Our explicit rejection of international law is truly historic.
As I understand it the relevant sections only come into play if there isn't a deal, so the Bill could become law, and if the bluster works and wins ERG votes for the trade deal then it's of less immediate consequence.
Why would the ERG back a deal when they can have what has been put on offer today?
I doubt the ERG is any more united on this than is 10 Downing Street. We are in this fix precisely because there is no settled Brexiteer consensus on what we want.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
But Boris can't walk back this legislation now.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
You've come along way from saying that the 'genius' of Boris's deal was that it solved the problem of the Irish border in a way that silly old Theresa never could.
The genius of Boris's deal was that its screwed the NI Unionists and left the rest of GB free to do as it please. As an Englishman I was selfishly OK with that since Stormont could vote to end the arrangements.
The EU have bitten off more than they could chew though, so now we're resetting everything.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
You are imo misreading the politics. I will be astonished if Johnson takes us out of the SM onto basic WTO terms and risks a border in Ireland. There will be a trade deal agreed this year or a quasi extension labelled as a deal. I'm 90% certain of this.
90%?
You weren't saying 90% yesterday were you?
Well nothing outside the laws of physics or Trump Toast is more than 99%.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
As being likely yes, but no deal is not as you put it a "Not Happening event".
Plus of course that's counting an "Australian-style deal" as being within the 80% . . . to most people until now "Australian-style deal" would have been counted as essentially No Deal.
No Deal is a not happening event. 100%. Not happening.
Happy to put a fiver on it with you to our respective favourite charities.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
But Boris can't walk back this legislation now.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
Boris can walk back any legislation by bringing new legislation that repeals or overrides it.
This will be law yes. It will be law until it isn't the law. If the EU agrees a deal with us and as part of that deal we agree to repeal or amend this law then we can do that as part of the deal.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
The rock and hard place Johnson sits between is this. How does he find the votes to put a deal with the EU into law?
We can assume that, in most cases, the Opposition will find fault with the specifics of the deal and vote against. In the case that the Opposition decide that the deal is worthy of support it is likely that this will trigger a challenge to Johnson's leadership - on the basis that he must have surrendered to Brussels to win the support of Remainers.
The ERG are likely to view any meaningful compromise with the EU as surrender, to which they would prefer No Deal.
The only way to win ERG support for a deal is to present it, at the last minute, as a victory over the EU and the Remainers. They have to be convinced that Johnson was not at all afraid of No Deal, and did not compromise in order to avoid it.
It's not the EU that Johnson has to convince with the No Deal rhetoric, to scare them into submission, it's the ERG who need to be convinced that the EU were cowed.
I'm not sure that the trick will work a second time. The ERG may drive us off the No Deal cliff even if Johnson doesn't want to.
Having given the ERG the draft of this bill it will be impossible for Johnson to row back from it. Today is one of the most significant days in modern British history. Our explicit rejection of international law is truly historic.
As I understand it the relevant sections only come into play if there isn't a deal, so the Bill could become law, and if the bluster works and wins ERG votes for the trade deal then it's of less immediate consequence.
Why would the ERG back a deal when they can have what has been put on offer today?
They might not. As I say, the trick that worked last time may not work this time. But I think it might be the plan - appear tough to convince the extremists.
It might be that this plan was never what worked last time - the extremists may have gone along with it only because they thought it better to be patient and go for no deal at the end of 2020.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
I think Johnson's big political mistake, aside from any diplomatic and constitutional shenanigans, is to disparage the deal he himself devised and lauded to the high heavens. He is in a trap that he can only get out of by undermining the whole Withdrawal Agreement.
He has very little room for manoeuvre and can only now appeal to the most destructive Brexiteers who want England to crash out of every arrangement it has. He will lose the "Make Brexit go away" crowd.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Its Ireland and the UK's jointly - and the EU are negotiating on behalf of Ireland.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
If the EU want peace in NI? If? I thought that we had peace in NI. The only people that are threatening it are the Conservative and (pardon my mirth) Unionist Government of the UK.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
Thank goodness Boris got rid of the 20 like Grieve last year.
There's a lot of "rule of law" Tory MPs though. Rule of law has formed the backbone of the party ever since its foundation, Boris is ripping that up for absolutely no gain.
There absolutely is a gain.
Today the Government has shown in no uncertain and absolutely unambiguous terms that the UK is a sovereign country and the EU's sovereign equal.
Now if the EU wants to start negotiating with us as sovereign equals then they can get a deal and this all goes away.
If the UK continues to want to treat the UK as some of subservient state in its sphere of influence then the UK has shown today it can look after itself.
This is the nuclear deterrent and the ball is back in the EU's court now. Their choice where we go next.
So, once you and other Brexiteers have had their wank over this, what happens then? How does this sovereignty actually improve the lives of people across the country?
It`s improved many people`s lives already (not me). You are underestimating how happy people are that we are no longer in the EU. I was in Parliament Square 31 Jan - there were literally tears of joy. I`m with you on Brexit, but have recognised long ago thay psychological utility is every bit a valuable as monetary utility.
That is the wank. As we all know, those do not go on forever. Withdrawing support for internaitonal law will have myriad consequences. First off, we are now almost certain to have no trade deal with the EU. We will also now find it much harder to get deals with other countries, Materially, therefore, the country will be less well and the economy will perform worse than would otherwise have been the case. That will impact jobs, public spending and much more besides. What's more ay an individual level, UK citizens and businesses will not be as free as they are today. All of this will have to be worked through.
You are imo misreading the politics. I will be astonished if Johnson takes us out of the SM onto basic WTO terms and risks a border in Ireland. There will be a trade deal agreed this year or a quasi extension labelled as a deal. I'm 90% certain of this.
90%?
You weren't saying 90% yesterday were you?
Well nothing outside the laws of physics or Trump Toast is more than 99%.
What is your % assessment of Deal vs No Deal then?
After today? I don't think the UK can blink from this, so lets say 1% chance of the UK backing down and accepting a BINO deal.
I think this will serious piss off and anger the EU. So the question is do they feel backed into a corner and have no choice to back down, or if they feel they can't lose face and need to fight this tooth and claw.
I'd guess: 60% chance of a minimal, Australian-style deal. 20% chance of the EU agreeing to a full Canada style deal. 20% chance of No Deal at all. 1% chance of the UK agreeing to a BINO deal
Not adding up to 100% due to rounding.
Ok thanks. So waffle aside, you're 80/20 and I'm 90/10. Pretty close. We both see a deal.
As being likely yes, but no deal is not as you put it a "Not Happening event".
Plus of course that's counting an "Australian-style deal" as being within the 80% . . . to most people until now "Australian-style deal" would have been counted as essentially No Deal.
By "deal" I mean that WTO terms are not a significant factor. If the "deal" is substantially WTO terms but with a few exemptions that is "no deal" in my eyes. We must therefore move your 60% "Australian style" monkey business to "no deal" to get apples with apples.
So in fact my 90/10 in truth compares to your 20/80.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
But Boris can't walk back this legislation now.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
But on the whole you are still pleased with your Brexit vote, I presume.
The German view seems to be that its sabre rattling for a domestic audience (particularly on the benches behind him) that has become increasingly unhappy with his struggling leadership, and brinkmanship to put pressure on the EU. I sense it is being called as a bluff.
In practical terms it doesn't much matter whether or not they see it as a bluff. Barnier will stick to his mandate either way. If the UK wants to talk about a deal, they'll listen politely, and repeat what they've been saying for the last four years. If the UK instead wants to throw a temper tantrum, they'll wait for it to subside, and then repeat what they've been saying for the last four years.
As we speak I expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC. Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GE.
I presume you mean GA?
There is a difference between "expect" and "hope"! I agree with "expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC." Although I think PA is very close. I would also add that Maine will vote Dem for all 4 ECV.
I think "Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GA" is well into the "hope" teritory.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Its Ireland and the UK's jointly - and the EU are negotiating on behalf of Ireland.
Earlier you said that the UK had absolute sovereignty over Northern Ireland, so how can it be Ireland’s joint responsibility?
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Its Ireland and the UK's jointly - and the EU are negotiating on behalf of Ireland.
Earlier you said that the UK had absolute sovereignty over Northern Ireland, so how can it be Ireland’s joint responsibility?
Because Ireland wants free trade with NI.
It needs to reach an agreement how to do that if that is what it wants. If it no longer wants that then they can erect a customs border etc if they want to do so, or they can accept their Single Market being compromised by NI and accept the consequences.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Its Ireland and the UK's jointly - and the EU are negotiating on behalf of Ireland.
Suddenly very comfortable with the EU meddling in our internal affairs.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
and @Philip_Thompson continues to whine like a child and throw his toys out of the pram every day that the EU won’t give us the same deal as Canada. It’s really quite amusing.
There's a bit more to it than that. Three years ago it was a threat...
The German view seems to be that its sabre rattling for a domestic audience (particularly on the benches behind him) that has become increasingly unhappy with his struggling leadership, and brinkmanship to put pressure on the EU. I sense it is being called as a bluff.
Just as an aside to the present brohaha: the Germans might want to reflect they don’t have great track record of reading when we are not bluffing, do they? 2016 had a long pedigree.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
But Boris can't walk back this legislation now.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
Boris can walk back any legislation by bringing new legislation that repeals or overrides it.
This will be law yes. It will be law until it isn't the law. If the EU agrees a deal with us and as part of that deal we agree to repeal or amend this law then we can do that as part of the deal.
Once released, putting cats back in bags is far from simple.
I do think that the Tories are underplaying the possibility that delivering a No Deal on the back of their decision to renege on an international treaty they told the electorate was a triumph and the precursor to a great FTA with the EU may not prove to be immensely popular.
The rock and hard place Johnson sits between is this. How does he find the votes to put a deal with the EU into law?
We can assume that, in most cases, the Opposition will find fault with the specifics of the deal and vote against. In the case that the Opposition decide that the deal is worthy of support it is likely that this will trigger a challenge to Johnson's leadership - on the basis that he must have surrendered to Brussels to win the support of Remainers.
The ERG are likely to view any meaningful compromise with the EU as surrender, to which they would prefer No Deal.
The only way to win ERG support for a deal is to present it, at the last minute, as a victory over the EU and the Remainers. They have to be convinced that Johnson was not at all afraid of No Deal, and did not compromise in order to avoid it.
It's not the EU that Johnson has to convince with the No Deal rhetoric, to scare them into submission, it's the ERG who need to be convinced that the EU were cowed.
I'm not sure that the trick will work a second time. The ERG may drive us off the No Deal cliff even if Johnson doesn't want to.
Having given the ERG the draft of this bill it will be impossible for Johnson to row back from it. Today is one of the most significant days in modern British history. Our explicit rejection of international law is truly historic.
As I understand it the relevant sections only come into play if there isn't a deal, so the Bill could become law, and if the bluster works and wins ERG votes for the trade deal then it's of less immediate consequence.
Why would the ERG back a deal when they can have what has been put on offer today?
I doubt the ERG is any more united on this than is 10 Downing Street. We are in this fix precisely because there is no settled Brexiteer consensus on what we want.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
and @Philip_Thompson continues to whine like a child and throw his toys out of the pram every day that the EU won’t give us the same deal as Canada. It’s really quite amusing.
LOL I'm not whining, I'm smiling. I literally just said how "delighted" I am and you think that's a whine? Do I need to accompany every post with a smiley face to show you my emotions? 😁
I am in a very good mood right now about how things are proceeding. This is what I have said for YEARS the Government to do on this site. Fantastic! Well done.
The whining seems to be people unhappy about "the rule of law" when if Parliament votes for this Act to go through, then this Act will be the law. No ifs, no buts.
I’ve already explained that “the rule of law” is not what you think it is - and yet you completely ignored it.
But regardless, you have been whining every day about the EU not giving us exactly what you want. I expect you to continue to do so.
"The rule of law" is that Parliament sets the law and we vote for MPs to set it how we want it setting.
We don't vote for foreign governments. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
Your ignorance is either deliberate, or surprising.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
and @Philip_Thompson continues to whine like a child and throw his toys out of the pram every day that the EU won’t give us the same deal as Canada. It’s really quite amusing.
LOL I'm not whining, I'm smiling. I literally just said how "delighted" I am and you think that's a whine? Do I need to accompany every post with a smiley face to show you my emotions? 😁
I am in a very good mood right now about how things are proceeding. This is what I have said for YEARS the Government to do on this site. Fantastic! Well done.
The whining seems to be people unhappy about "the rule of law" when if Parliament votes for this Act to go through, then this Act will be the law. No ifs, no buts.
I’ve already explained that “the rule of law” is not what you think it is - and yet you completely ignored it.
But regardless, you have been whining every day about the EU not giving us exactly what you want. I expect you to continue to do so.
"The rule of law" is that Parliament sets the law and we vote for MPs to set it how we want it setting.
We don't vote for foreign governments. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
Your ignorance is either deliberate, or surprising.
He is a troll. It is why I never respond to anything he posts.
I used to lurk on here during the EU referendum, it was interesting to read a balanced set of views, but having joined it seems most Brexiteers have gone and its developed into a stop Brexit echo chamber.
Not a problem but its very dull and not a coincidence that numbers have fallen
It is true that it has become a stop brexit echo chamber and does not reflect the wider view in the general public
Who is calling to stop Brexit?
We can't stop it, we left in January.
Or are you conflating those of us who think Brexit is a bad idea with those that wanted to stop it in the past?
I want EEA, that is not calling for us to stop Brexit
I am not including anyone who wants a sensible deal like yourself but this forum is dominated by many who do not accept brexit and want it to fail or be reversed
There are probably some who want it to fail, but also many who look at the situation developing and forsee it failing whether they like it or not.
(That's part of the strange postmodern Johnson view of politics; confusing what you want to happen, what should happen and what can happen.)
I suspect a large majority accept that Brexit has happened and will continue to happen. A small majority (according to YouGov) think it's a mistake, and a larger majority (according to YouGov) think the government is making an absolute Horlicks of the situation.
There's no contradiction there.
You omit the largest majority, made up of Leavers and Remainers, who accept the result and are sick of the word Brexit.
Just leave Boris and we can get on with our lives.
Your shit lives, in your shit country, with its shit government and shit future.
At some point we have to have some accountability, and maybe an incentive to improve things.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
We hold all the cards. We've just played our Ace, let's see what they do now.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
and @Philip_Thompson continues to whine like a child and throw his toys out of the pram every day that the EU won’t give us the same deal as Canada. It’s really quite amusing.
LOL I'm not whining, I'm smiling. I literally just said how "delighted" I am and you think that's a whine? Do I need to accompany every post with a smiley face to show you my emotions? 😁
I am in a very good mood right now about how things are proceeding. This is what I have said for YEARS the Government to do on this site. Fantastic! Well done.
The whining seems to be people unhappy about "the rule of law" when if Parliament votes for this Act to go through, then this Act will be the law. No ifs, no buts.
I’ve already explained that “the rule of law” is not what you think it is - and yet you completely ignored it.
But regardless, you have been whining every day about the EU not giving us exactly what you want. I expect you to continue to do so.
"The rule of law" is that Parliament sets the law and we vote for MPs to set it how we want it setting.
We don't vote for foreign governments. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
Your ignorance is either deliberate, or surprising.
He is a troll. It is why I never respond to anything he posts.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
We hold all the cards. We've just played our Ace, let's see what they do now.
I'm all for electoral reform but what on earth is the point in having AV for the American Presidency??? Congress, I can understand, but in a two-party system when electing to a single office..?
I'm all for electoral reform but what on earth is the point in having AV for the American Presidency??? Congress, I can understand, but in a two-party system when electing to a single office..?
I guess it gives 3rd party voters, who know their 1st choice will lose, a say in who they prefer out of Dem v GOP.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
But Boris can't walk back this legislation now.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
Boris can walk back any legislation by bringing new legislation that repeals or overrides it.
This will be law yes. It will be law until it isn't the law. If the EU agrees a deal with us and as part of that deal we agree to repeal or amend this law then we can do that as part of the deal.
Or we could just renege on the deal we have agreed, again. We have now made very clear we are a country that cannot be trusted.
It's now clear it was signed in a rush to deliver an election talking point for Johnson, and he probably had no intention at all of sticking to what he called a brilliant deal.
As we speak I expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC. Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GE.
I presume you mean GA?
There is a difference between "expect" and "hope"! I agree with "expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC." Although I think PA is very close. I would also add that Maine will vote Dem for all 4 ECV.
I think "Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GA" is well into the "hope" teritory.
So this is my "Expected" map:
I'd in truth settle for that - Trump gone is the main thing and I'm long of supremacy at 28 - but no I did mean expect not hope. I think 2 of those 4 will go for Biden. Florida is where I think Trump will outperform. I think he'll hold Florida.
As we speak I expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC. Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GE.
I presume you mean GA?
There is a difference between "expect" and "hope"! I agree with "expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC." Although I think PA is very close. I would also add that Maine will vote Dem for all 4 ECV.
I think "Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GA" is well into the "hope" teritory.
So this is my "Expected" map:
Cannot see Biden winning NC but otherwise plausible map for Biden if he wins
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
How do you arrive at no border with Northern Ireland or Ireland, but a border with Scotland?
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
The Conservative path towards wrecking the entire country, and the lives of all its inhabitants. Thank you, young HY, for spelling it out so clearly. You should have said this before the last election.
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Like the tariffs we can expect next Jan 1st on all goods going across the Straits of Dover, eh! What's the tariff on imported fish and similar?
The German view seems to be that its sabre rattling for a domestic audience (particularly on the benches behind him) that has become increasingly unhappy with his struggling leadership, and brinkmanship to put pressure on the EU. I sense it is being called as a bluff.
Just as an aside to the present brohaha: the Germans might want to reflect they don’t have great track record of reading when we are not bluffing, do they? 2016 had a long pedigree.
Problem isn't Germans not knowing when we are bluffing. Problem is we* don't know when we are bluffing.
Suppose we do actually want a deal? The only way this is possible is if we ARE in fact bluffing.
Suppose we don't want a deal? That's because we are NOT bluffing and the other party loses all interest in us.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
His view also seems to be that peace in Ireland is something that the EU want, and will be prepared to compromise to achieve, but that the U.K. really aren’t that fussed about it either way. To the extent that we’re quite willing to use the threat of a return to violence as a negotiating tactic.
Rather strange as the Troubles were always far more of a domestic issue for the U.K. than Eire...
Oh, and contemptible of course, but that goes without saying.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
His view also seems to be that peace in Ireland is something that the EU want, and will be prepared to compromise to achieve, but that the U.K. really aren’t that fussed about it either way. To the extent that we’re quite willing to use the threat of a return to violence as a negotiating tactic.
Rather strange as the Troubles were always far more of a domestic issue for the U.K. than Eire...
Oh, and contemptible of course, but that goes without saying.
Yes a lot of the Brexiters are happy to see a return to violence in NI and see it as a price worth paying.
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
How do you arrive at no border with Northern Ireland or Ireland, but a border with Scotland?
You've missed the obvious explanation: the rabbit which @HYUFD expects Boris to pull out of the hat is that Scotland leaves the UK at the same time that Boris takes us triumphantly back into the EU.
The German view seems to be that its sabre rattling for a domestic audience (particularly on the benches behind him) that has become increasingly unhappy with his struggling leadership, and brinkmanship to put pressure on the EU. I sense it is being called as a bluff.
Just as an aside to the present brohaha: the Germans might want to reflect they don’t have great track record of reading when we are not bluffing, do they? 2016 had a long pedigree.
Problem isn't Germans not knowing when we are bluffing. Problem is we* don't know when we are bluffing.
Suppose we do actually want a deal? The only way this is possible is if we ARE in fact bluffing.
Suppose we don't want a deal? That's because we are NOT bluffing and the other party loses all interest in us.
* The "we" pronoun used for inclusiveness.
Who does the inclusive we include? Boris does not seem to understand what is going on: I do not think he was lying about the Irish Sea border; merely not understanding any of the issues involved. Dominic Cummings in some lights looks like a cross between Gordon Brown and Tony Benn, poles apart from the Adam Smith headbanger end of the ERG. We can't tell the EU what we want because we are not clear ourselves. And all because David Cameron never insisted the Leavers get together and hammer out a single vision.
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
His view also seems to be that peace in Ireland is something that the EU want, and will be prepared to compromise to achieve, but that the U.K. really aren’t that fussed about it either way. To the extent that we’re quite willing to use the threat of a return to violence as a negotiating tactic.
Rather strange as the Troubles were always far more of a domestic issue for the U.K. than Eire...
Oh, and contemptible of course, but that goes without saying.
Yes a lot of the Brexiters are happy to see a return to violence in NI and see it as a price worth paying.
I vaguely remember one of our posters taking the attitude that if it does ‘so be it’
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
How do you arrive at no border with Northern Ireland or Ireland, but a border with Scotland?
Apparently we’re taking back full control of our borders, just opting to leave gaping holes in them.
Yes, the essential problem of Brexit remains. If we leave the EU "properly" - meaning abandoning LPF and alignment - we must either have a border across Ireland (not an option) or a border in the Irish Sea (something no UK Prime Minister could ever accept).
No, there will be no hard border with Eire and no border in the Irish Sea under this government. Boris will block indyref2 and if Scotland goes under no deal to rejoin EU that means tariffs on Scottish exports to England and vice versa
Don't acts repeal other acts all the time? The only extraordinary bit is the international bit (and that still happens from time to time, apparently?)
The remarkable bit is that they think they can do this and the WA will still exist. It won't. By reneging on any part of it they renege on the whole.
Yes.
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The EU are simply back in a position where they were a year ago.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Peace in Northern Ireland, now outside of the EU, is not the EU's responsibility though. It's the UK's. I don't see how that is leverage to break their internal market but not to break ours.
Philip is relying on the EU being more responsible and grown up than us.
It's a fair call.
His view also seems to be that peace in Ireland is something that the EU want, and will be prepared to compromise to achieve, but that the U.K. really aren’t that fussed about it either way. To the extent that we’re quite willing to use the threat of a return to violence as a negotiating tactic.
Rather strange as the Troubles were always far more of a domestic issue for the U.K. than Eire...
Oh, and contemptible of course, but that goes without saying.
Yes a lot of the Brexiters are happy to see a return to violence in NI and see it as a price worth paying.
I vaguely remember one of our posters taking the attitude that if it does ‘so be it’
Yes, presumably willing to see the violence also extend to mainland UK too as it did last time.
BBC reporting widespread concern on the Tory backbenches
It only needs 40 MPs to reject it, a majority of 80 can disappear quite easily as they saw with Huawei.
It won't happen, not a chance. If the bill does not pass Johnson will have to resign. If you are going to announce to the world that your government no longer believes in international law and then you cannot deliver on that, you are finished. Tory MPs will understand that and put their party first. It's like the GOP with Trump. The Rubicon will be crossed.
In all this fury, might I tentativelly point out that the EU are not squeaky clean. I think the UK thought it had a last resort in the form of a Canada deal, then this ...
Is this the point that relationships soured beyond repair?
As far as I can tell, the only "promise" of a Canada-style deal that the EU ever made was a Canadian flag icon on a powerpoint presentation. It seems the UK government has put an awful lot of weight on a powerpoint slide that someone put together to demonstrate a hierarchy of plausible possible deals & the red lines that would have to be crossed in order to get them.
The idea that a single powerpoint slide ever counted as some kind of guarantee that the UK could pick and choose from the list of deals on that slide according to its choice of redlines seems something of a stretch.
and @Philip_Thompson continues to whine like a child and throw his toys out of the pram every day that the EU won’t give us the same deal as Canada. It’s really quite amusing.
LOL I'm not whining, I'm smiling. I literally just said how "delighted" I am and you think that's a whine? Do I need to accompany every post with a smiley face to show you my emotions? 😁
I am in a very good mood right now about how things are proceeding. This is what I have said for YEARS the Government to do on this site. Fantastic! Well done.
The whining seems to be people unhappy about "the rule of law" when if Parliament votes for this Act to go through, then this Act will be the law. No ifs, no buts.
I’ve already explained that “the rule of law” is not what you think it is - and yet you completely ignored it.
But regardless, you have been whining every day about the EU not giving us exactly what you want. I expect you to continue to do so.
"The rule of law" is that Parliament sets the law and we vote for MPs to set it how we want it setting.
We don't vote for foreign governments. That is why international law is subordinate to domestic law.
Your ignorance is either deliberate, or surprising.
He is a troll. It is why I never respond to anything he posts.
I am not sure he is a troll, he's just mad.
Possibly... I prefer to think he just enjoys winding people up on here.
This is almost reminiscent of the time Labour was casting around for ideas to justify ID cards. As excuse fell to analysis they went off and invented increasingly desperate reasons to justify the outcome they wanted.
Now it is the Tories turn - with Brexit in place of ID cards.
Comments
I would say, effective.
https://twitter.com/DavidGauke/status/1303400101176635392
They may think we're going about it belligerently, but I don't think anyone will think "imbeciles".
And that is the inevitable consequence of this.
The problem I see is that even if the EU folds on the dynamic level playing field provisions (which is the bit I always found most objectionable), then the Northern Ireland Unionists are going to expect that these changes to the WA continue. I don't think it's possible to walk them back now.
So it's hard to see how this is a working negotiating tactic, because we've already done what we're threatening. If we'd said (in private) to the EU "if you aren't willing to agree to sensible level playing field provisions, then we'll have to look very closely next year at the workings of the UK internal market, and this might be the consequence...", then that would be a negotiating tactic.
Instead, we've ripped up the WA, and I don't see how we can put it back together again. And if we've ripped it up, I don't see how the EU can fold to us. We've painted them into a corner where the WA is ripped up in all circumstances.
The justification being that parties entering into a coalition ditch certain policies over which the electorate has no say.
In the last 3 days this government has ditched an important policy, over which the electorate has no say, and this is despite a solid majority brought about by FPTP.
If they want peace in NI and to secure the integrity of their market they will need to negotiate with us.
Otherwise they can compromise either the integrity of their market or the integrity of the Irish market.
This is entirely reasonable IMO based on their perverted attempt to under duress deal with this with their perverted sequencing. The future of Irish issues should always have been determined along with UK/EU trade. Now they're basically back to square one. Good.
Plus of course that's counting an "Australian-style deal" as being within the 80% . . . to most people until now "Australian-style deal" would have been counted as essentially No Deal.
Unlikely.
It's going into law.
It's a negotiating tactic to threaten the legislation to the EU.
It's not a negotiating tactic when you bring the Bill before the Houses of Parliament with a three line whip.
The EU have bitten off more than they could chew though, so now we're resetting everything.
Happy to put a fiver on it with you to our respective favourite charities.
This will be law yes. It will be law until it isn't the law. If the EU agrees a deal with us and as part of that deal we agree to repeal or amend this law then we can do that as part of the deal.
It might be that this plan was never what worked last time - the extremists may have gone along with it only because they thought it better to be patient and go for no deal at the end of 2020.
He has very little room for manoeuvre and can only now appeal to the most destructive Brexiteers who want England to crash out of every arrangement it has. He will lose the "Make Brexit go away" crowd.
I thought that we had peace in NI. The only people that are threatening it are the Conservative and (pardon my mirth) Unionist Government of the UK.
So in fact my 90/10 in truth compares to your 20/80.
MILES apart - what a relief!
There is a difference between "expect" and "hope"!
I agree with "expect Biden to lose no states and take the Rust Belt 3. Plus AZ and NC." Although I think PA is very close. I would also add that Maine will vote Dem for all 4 ECV.
I think "Plus 2 from OH, TX, IOWA, GA" is well into the "hope" teritory.
So this is my "Expected" map:
It's a fair call.
It needs to reach an agreement how to do that if that is what it wants. If it no longer wants that then they can erect a customs border etc if they want to do so, or they can accept their Single Market being compromised by NI and accept the consequences.
Three years ago it was a threat...
UK likely to end up with Canadian-style deal, warns Barnier
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier
Which somehow morphed into...
Michel Barnier: UK can't have Canada trade deal with EU
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51549662
I am not one who believes that the EU has behaved massively more reasonably than have we.
Surely that was the only plan agreed on?
At some point we have to have some accountability, and maybe an incentive to improve things.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1303673684293554176
Michigan Biden's easiest pick up; North Carolina slightly more Dem than the closest state to parity, Florida.
WI -> AZ -> NE2 -> PA -> the remainder of the pick ups. Biden wins 334 / 204
Close but no cigar on Ohio, Texas and Georgia.
It feels to me that Boris has one eye on the door and Brexit is the bauble he wants hanging around the neck of his legacy.
He doesn’t care about all your concerns about his tactics, he’s driving as hard as he can to get a deal on the terms he wants. And then he’ll be done.
Stop betting on Texas going to Biden and pile on Boris to step down in 2021; similar odds are they not?
(yes, sorry, Georgia, GA)
- Suppose we do actually want a deal? The only way this is possible is if we ARE in fact bluffing.
- Suppose we don't want a deal? That's because we are NOT bluffing and the other party loses all interest in us.
* The "we" pronoun used for inclusiveness.Rather strange as the Troubles were always far more of a domestic issue for the U.K. than Eire...
Oh, and contemptible of course, but that goes without saying.
And yet Johnson wants to impose another deadline, what an idiot
So which parts will we ignore?
We leave either with a deal or no deal
Oh dear. Wonder what our "Boris" will do?
Now it is the Tories turn - with Brexit in place of ID cards.
It is a shining example of what an unbiased poll should be like.
*I'm a supporter of the Tory, Labour, BXP and SNP parties so I get all their bumph and keep an eye on them. I'm actually a member of the LibDems.