Truss is right and you are wrong. Their name is simply Republic of Korea.
They have never been called South, never claimed to be South and do not call themselves South. South Korea is an informal name used in the west that they don't use and to use it formally would be diplomatically insulting them.
While signing a formal agreement with the Republic of Korea, for a British minister to refer to South Korea would be like signing an agreement with Ireland and calling them Southern Ireland.
No, West and East Germany is a better example, neither of which had West or East in their official names.
Be that as it may, Truss used the appropriate title. You could just acknowledge your mistake.
Truss is right and you are wrong. Their name is simply Republic of Korea.
They have never been called South, never claimed to be South and do not call themselves South. South Korea is an informal name used in the west that they don't use and to use it formally would be diplomatically insulting them.
While signing a formal agreement with the Republic of Korea, for a British minister to refer to South Korea would be like signing an agreement with Ireland and calling them Southern Ireland.
No, West and East Germany is a better example, neither of which had West or East in their official names.
Thank the lord we are leaving. To describe this as 1970s thinking would be unfair to that decade.
What's wrong with a sovereign wealth fund ? I know it's an idea that's anathema to spend and borrow UK but China, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand all have one bringing in regular dividends, growth and whatnot - and they all have very different systems of Gov't. A national pension fund if you will. I think it looks very fiscally prudent though I'd agree that it should not solely buy EU equities.
There's nothing wrong with a sovereign wealth fund. What is wrong is using tax payers money to pick winners who are going to compete with international giants that completely dominate their respective market places. That kind of thinking is money down the drain as we know from far too many painful experiences.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
Boris isn't the only one that wants to avoid blame. They've not said an outright no ….. they've just set him an impossible task.
Its a very possible task.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
Really the only practical way to 'block no deal' is to write something which dicates the PM (whoever that is) to revoke Art50 in the event of no-deal.
And what happens if Boris resigns to HMQ on 31st October, as he refuses to carry out that instruction?
The two powers that can dictate to a PM are an Act of Parliament and an order of the court. In practice the second would mean the Supreme Court - the second level of appeal following the Court of Appeal - which isn't all that quick. I don't think these routes are going to be taken successfully.
I’m pretty sure an expedited hearing would get to the Supreme Court double quick in a matter of such importance. There would likely be a leapfrog over the CoA I would have thought.
Oh, great. Another lawyer who thinks our judicial system exists solely to prevent stuff they don't like from happening.
The effort that has gone into trying to stop Brexit is staggering. It's a shame none of this zeal was present during the referendum campaign. But then, why bother, when you think you've got the system rigged to get your own way regardless?
Chill. I didn’t say I wanted it to happen. The law shouldn’t be there for that reason. Simply that that is what is likely to happen. You’ll note that I gave no indication of what the SC’s decision would be. In fact I’m not even sure what the case would involve. I just made a passing comment on procedure. So calm down.
Thank the lord we are leaving. To describe this as 1970s thinking would be unfair to that decade.
What's wrong with a sovereign wealth fund ? I know it's an idea that's anathema to spend and borrow UK but China, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand all have one bringing in regular dividends, growth and whatnot - and they all have very different systems of Gov't. A national pension fund if you will. I think it looks very fiscally prudent though I'd agree that it should not solely buy EU equities.
There's nothing wrong with a sovereign wealth fund. What is wrong is using tax payers money to pick winners who are going to compete with international giants that completely dominate their respective market places. That kind of thinking is money down the drain as we know from far too many painful experiences.
You also have to look for the subtext. Everything the EU does is aimed at accruing more powers. Reallocating large pots of money from member states' budgets and into its own is just another form of centralisation. Thank goodness its not our problem anymore!
Really the only practical way to 'block no deal' is to write something which dicates the PM (whoever that is) to revoke Art50 in the event of no-deal.
And what happens if Boris resigns to HMQ on 31st October, as he refuses to carry out that instruction?
The two powers that can dictate to a PM are an Act of Parliament and an order of the court. In practice the second would mean the Supreme Court - the second level of appeal following the Court of Appeal - which isn't all that quick. I don't think these routes are going to be taken successfully.
I’m pretty sure an expedited hearing would get to the Supreme Court double quick in a matter of such importance. There would likely be a leapfrog over the CoA I would have thought.
?
Justice delayed is justice denied. A case will be heard in time for any decision to make a difference.
That does not mean that the decision would necessarily go one way or the other.
What would the court case be? That a PM can't call a general election when receiving a loss of confidence? That is what happened in 1979 and many times since. I am not a lawyer, but the FTPA doesn't seem to change any of that. It just mandates a 14 day waiting period.
The title of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is a fairly big clue that your assumption that it hasn't changed things is wrong.
The FTPA says a GE must be held if there is a vote of no confidence as long as there is no reversal in 14 days. It does not say anything about the PM having to resign in the interim.
No it does not. It does, however, expressly anticipate that votes of confidence will be possible after that point. I expect that the courts would prevent a Prime Minister who had been no-confidenced from frustrating that possibility.
That is exactly what it says. Section 2.3. If there is a vote of no confidence and no vote of confidence in 14 days there would be an election. There is nothing that requires the PM to resign in the intervening period. If the PM wants to resign in the interim and recommend an alternative to Her Majesty, he can. But if he doesn't want to the only thing the FTPA forces him to do is have an election.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
Boris isn't the only one that wants to avoid blame. They've not said an outright no ….. they've just set him an impossible task.
Its a very possible task.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
This is very much mission possible.
I do agree that the next step in this difficult dance is Dublin and getting a consensus that can be jointly presented to the EU. Not going to be easy but that faint glimmer of light just might not be an oncoming train after all.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
You’re spinning this as a positive for Boris? Eh?
Of course.
The noises from both Germany and France should ensure Boris doesn't face a VONC on 4th September and if he does he should win it...
That's a big plus for him and for Brexit.
And its just possible they really do mean the WA can be opened up to look at the back stop... In which case we may actually end up leaving with an acceptable deal afterall...
Really the only practical way to 'block no deal' is to write something which dicates the PM (whoever that is) to revoke Art50 in the event of no-deal.
And what happens if Boris resigns to HMQ on 31st October, as he refuses to carry out that instruction?
The two powers that can dictate to a PM are an Act of Parliament and an order of the court. In practice the second would mean the Supreme Court - the second level of appeal following the Court of Appeal - which isn't all that quick. I don't think these routes are going to be taken successfully.
I’m pretty sure an expedited hearing would get to the Supreme Court double quick in a matter of such importance. There would likely be a leapfrog over the CoA I would have thought.
?
Justice delayed is justice denied. A case will be heard in time for any decision to make a difference.
That does not mean that the decision would necessarily go one way or the other.
What would the court case be? That a PM can't call a general election when receiving a loss of confidence? That is what happened in 1979 and many times since. I am not a lawyer, but the FTPA doesn't seem to change any of that. It just mandates a 14 day waiting period.
The title of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is a fairly big clue that your assumption that it hasn't changed things is wrong.
The FTPA says a GE must be held if there is a vote of no confidence as long as there is no reversal in 14 days. It does not say anything about the PM having to resign in the interim.
No it does not. It does, however, expressly anticipate that votes of confidence will be possible after that point. I expect that the courts would prevent a Prime Minister who had been no-confidenced from frustrating that possibility.
That is exactly what it says. Section 2.3. If there is a vote of no confidence and no vote of confidence in 14 days there would be an election. There is nothing that requires the PM to resign in the intervening period. If the PM wants to resign in the interim and recommend an alternative to Her Majesty, he can. But if he doesn't want to the only thing the FTPA forces him to do is have an election.
It envisages a vote of confidence. By necessary implication such a vote must be capable of being held.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
You’re spinning this as a positive for Boris? Eh?
You're not? Rehearsing the well worn line about the deal is the deal would have been the easiest thing in the world. Instead both leaders have gone about as far as they could have in opening the door to changes. What would you classify as a success, Merkel making a spliff out of the backstop and sharing it with Bojo outside the Reichstag?
Damn, messed up the editing again. Not sure if I completely agree with that. If the Commons expressed a vote of confidence in someone else in that 14 days they would become PM. Of course if, as usual, they cannot agree amongst themselves then I do agree that the incumbent would stay by default.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
You’re spinning this as a positive for Boris? Eh?
You're not? Rehearsing the well worn line about the deal is the deal would have been the easiest thing in the world. Instead both leaders have gone about as far as they could have in opening the door to changes. What would you classify as a success, Merkel making a spliff out of the backstop and sharing it with Bojo outside the Reichstag?
They are saying the exact same thing they have always said. Have you not being paying attention?
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
You’re spinning this as a positive for Boris? Eh?
You're not? Rehearsing the well worn line about the deal is the deal would have been the easiest thing in the world. Instead both leaders have gone about as far as they could have in opening the door to changes. What would you classify as a success, Merkel making a spliff out of the backstop and sharing it with Bojo outside the Reichstag?
They are saying the exact same thing they have always said. Have you not being paying attention?
I'm not going to try and make you see something you don't want to.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
You’re spinning this as a positive for Boris? Eh?
You're not? Rehearsing the well worn line about the deal is the deal would have been the easiest thing in the world. Instead both leaders have gone about as far as they could have in opening the door to changes. What would you classify as a success, Merkel making a spliff out of the backstop and sharing it with Bojo outside the Reichstag?
They are saying the exact same thing they have always said. Have you not being paying attention?
I'm not going to try and make you see something you don't want to.
Really the only practical way to 'block no deal' is to write something which dicates the PM (whoever that is) to revoke Art50 in the event of no-deal.
And what happens if Boris resigns to HMQ on 31st October, as he refuses to carry out that instruction?
The two powers that can dictate to a PM are an Act of Parliament and an order of the court. In practice the second would mean the Supreme Court - the second level of appeal following the Court of Appeal - which isn't all that quick. I don't think these routes are going to be taken successfully.
I’m pretty sure an expedited hearing would get to the Supreme Court double quick in a matter of such importance. There would likely be a leapfrog over the CoA I would have thought.
Oh, great. Another lawyer who thinks our judicial system exists solely to prevent stuff they don't like from happening.
The effort that has gone into trying to stop Brexit is staggering. It's a shame none of this zeal was present during the referendum campaign. But then, why bother, when you think you've got the system rigged to get your own way regardless?
Justice delayed is justice denied. A case will be heard in time for any decision to make a difference.
That does not mean that the decision would necessarily go one way or the other.
What would the court case be? That a PM can't call a general election when receiving a loss of confidence? That is what happened in 1979 and many times since. I am not a lawyer, but the FTPA doesn't seem to change any of that. It just mandates a 14 day waiting period.
The title of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is a fairly big clue that your assumption that it hasn't changed things is wrong.
The FTPA says a GE must be held if there is a vote of no confidence as long as there is no reversal in 14 days. It does not say anything about the PM having to resign in the interim.
No it does not. It does, however, expressly anticipate that votes of confidence will be possible after that point. I expect that the courts would prevent a Prime Minister who had been no-confidenced from frustrating that possibility.
Despite someone's pointless one line nonsense, the real story is how desperate the Mail, Telegraph and the rest of the pro-Johnson media have become as it is clear their man is going to get as far on his European odyssey as both Theresa May and David Cameron did on theirs.
British PMs going looking like supplicants to Paris and Berlin never ends well despite the Pravda-style reporting from the pro-Boris brigade. The onus has always been on the UK to come up with the solutions to the problems and why not - we are the ones who decided to leave.
Back before the EU clarified what they meant by the backstop and how unacceptable that was to Britain.
ROFL
Careful. Spin any harder you're going to hurt yourself
Couldn't find a Tweet to say that?
Things are going exactly as I said they would for the past 12 months. I should rename myself The Oracle
Really? I remember you saying the EU would remove the backstop for May, U-turning to say no, they're too stubborn to remove it, and now you appear to have come round the full 360 to say that actually they will remove it after all, but for Boris not May. I look forward to the 540 in October
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
Boris isn't the only one that wants to avoid blame. They've not said an outright no ….. they've just set him an impossible task.
Its a very possible task.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
This is very much mission possible.
I do agree that the next step in this difficult dance is Dublin and getting a consensus that can be jointly presented to the EU. Not going to be easy but that faint glimmer of light just might not be an oncoming train after all.
Not going to be easy, but no deal won't be easy either. The path of least resistance, as unlikely as it appears, is a new deal between Varadkar and Boris.
Getting an agreement between Boris and Varadkar is improbable. Getting the backstop through Parliament is impossible. Having Ireland want no deal to occur is impossible. Having the EU throw Ireland under the bus is impossible.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Back before the EU clarified what they meant by the backstop and how unacceptable that was to Britain.
ROFL
Careful. Spin any harder you're going to hurt yourself
Couldn't find a Tweet to say that?
Things are going exactly as I said they would for the past 12 months. I should rename myself The Oracle
Really? I remember you saying the EU would remove the backstop for May, U-turning to say no, they're too stubborn to remove it, and now you appear to have come round the full 360 to say that actually they will remove it after all, but for Boris not May. I look forward to the 540 in October
Your memory is faulty as I never said that.
I originally said that if May became serious about no deal then it would, but she didn't. I always said she wasn't serious so they wouldn't until she either changed or was replaced. By the time of the Tory Confidence vote I was long saying May had failed because she wasn't serious about no deal so she had to go and be replaced by someone who could be.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
Boris isn't the only one that wants to avoid blame. They've not said an outright no ….. they've just set him an impossible task.
Its a very possible task.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
This is very much mission possible.
I do agree that the next step in this difficult dance is Dublin and getting a consensus that can be jointly presented to the EU. Not going to be easy but that faint glimmer of light just might not be an oncoming train after all.
Not going to be easy, but no deal won't be easy either. The path of least resistance, as unlikely as it appears, is a new deal between Varadkar and Boris.
Getting an agreement between Boris and Varadkar is improbable. Getting the backstop through Parliament is impossible. Having Ireland want no deal to occur is impossible. Having the EU throw Ireland under the bus is impossible.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I’m pretty sure an expedited hearing would get to the Supreme Court double quick in a matter of such importance. There would likely be a leapfrog over the CoA I would have thought.
Oh, great. Another lawyer who thinks our judicial system exists solely to prevent stuff they don't like from happening.
The effort that has gone into trying to stop Brexit is staggering. It's a shame none of this zeal was present during the referendum campaign. But then, why bother, when you think you've got the system rigged to get your own way regardless?
Justice delayed is justice denied. A case will be heard in time for any decision to make a difference.
That does not mean that the decision would necessarily go one way or the other.
What would the court case be? That a PM can't call a general election when receiving a loss of confidence? That is what happened in 1979 and many times since. I am not a lawyer, but the FTPA doesn't seem to change any of that. It just mandates a 14 day waiting period.
The title of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is a fairly big clue that your assumption that it hasn't changed things is wrong.
The FTPA says a GE must be held if there is a vote of no confidence as long as there is no reversal in 14 days. It does not say anything about the PM having to resign in the interim.
No it does not. It does, however, expressly anticipate that votes of confidence will be possible after that point. I expect that the courts would prevent a Prime Minister who had been no-confidenced from frustrating that possibility.
Yes. But Mr Speaker would get there first.
Back when I did constitutional law, admittedly a long time ago, the overriding principle was that the affairs of the House of Commons were a matter for it and no one else. I don't really think that the FTPA destroys that Convention although it introduced some additional rules. If a PM was no confidenced and sought to prorogue Parliament that would really be a matter for the Commons than the Courts. But I have no doubt that the Commons would feel able to override a PM in such a situation and sit. And I have no doubt that it would. What would happen when it convened is more a matter of conjecture but I would imagine that such a PM would have very little sympathy and rightly so.
So despite all the sniping things have actually gone pretty well for Boris with both Angie and Macron?
Boris isn't the only one that wants to avoid blame. They've not said an outright no ….. they've just set him an impossible task.
Its a very possible task.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
This is very much mission possible.
I do agree that the next step in this difficult dance is Dublin and getting a consensus that can be jointly presented to the EU. Not going to be easy but that faint glimmer of light just might not be an oncoming train after all.
Not going to be easy, but no deal won't be easy either. The path of least resistance, as unlikely as it appears, is a new deal between Varadkar and Boris.
Getting an agreement between Boris and Varadkar is improbable. Getting the backstop through Parliament is impossible. Having Ireland want no deal to occur is impossible. Having the EU throw Ireland under the bus is impossible.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Brexit logic: If the EU drop the backstop, it only proves that they’ll do anything to lock us into the withdrawal agreement because it’s such a good deal for them.
I wonder if Boris could try the following: put Theresa's WA back before parliament but say that he's re-negotiated it so that we can remove the backstop if we solve the Irish border problem at some point in future. I can't imagine too many MPs would fall for it, but it might be worth a try.
Not at all, he said he was hopeful a Deal could be reached within 30 days just the mainstay of the Withdrawal Agreement would stay, however Macron did not rule out alternatives to the backstop being found so another good day for Boris
Truss is right and you are wrong. Their name is simply Republic of Korea.
They have never been called South, never claimed to be South and do not call themselves South. South Korea is an informal name used in the west that they don't use and to use it formally would be diplomatically insulting them.
While signing a formal agreement with the Republic of Korea, for a British minister to refer to South Korea would be like signing an agreement with Ireland and calling them Southern Ireland.
No, West and East Germany is a better example, neither of which had West or East in their official names.
Competely off topic: What I find annoying is when Germans translate DDR into English as GDR. Yes it is the official English but outside of political documents or academic history articles very few English speakers use GDR, and many have no idea what it is. I deliberately use DDR in English as most people (at least my age and older) are familiar with the abbreviation in the same way that Germans understand UK and would not understand VK.
Not at all, he said he was hopeful a Deal could be reached within 30 days just the mainstay of the Withdrawal Agreement would stay, however Macron did not rule out alternatives to the backstop being found so another good day for Boris
They are just making sure its Boris who gets the blame for no deal. We all know that there is no realistic alternative to the backstop.
I wonder if Boris could try the following: put Theresa's WA back before parliament but say that he's re-negotiated it so that we can remove the backstop if we solve the Irish border problem at some point in future. I can't imagine too many MPs would fall for it, but it might be worth a try.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the stupidity of our MPs once again but even they probably know what the word "backstop" means.
A more nuanced approach would be if Boris comes to the Commons and says that he's had some chats with his newest, bestest mate, Varadkar and they are absolutely confident that a mutually acceptable arrangement will be hammered out within the transition period. What does the Commons do then?
I originally said that if May became serious about no deal then it would, but she didn't. I always said she wasn't serious so they wouldn't until she either changed or was replaced. By the time of the Tory Confidence vote I was long saying May had failed because she wasn't serious about no deal so she had to go and be replaced by someone who could be.
There is an argument that those who voted LEAVE on 23/6/16 should have realised a No Deal exit was possible and have therefore no justification in crying foul over a No Deal.
Fair enough but if the ordinary voter should have known that so should the UK Government so I'm forced to ask why preparations for a No Deal weren't started as soon as A50 was triggered on 29/3/17 so that if No Deal looked likely we would be ready. I'm forced to conclude, like you, the UK Government never seriously contemplated a No Deal exit and the palpable sense of panic earlier this year was proof.
On another issue, as a man "of the Right", can I ask, in the light of the furore over the proposed sale of Greenland, whether you would accept sovereignty is a commodity which can be bought or sold like any other?
Trump's idea has united the entire Danish political spectrum against him but from an economic standpoint it makes good sense for Copenhagen who are forced to subsidise the island. The wealthy Scots signed away their sovereignty and independence for the promise of getting rich off England (which many did).
What is sovereignty worth? IF a future American President offered every British man, woman and children 500,000 dollars to sign away their British citizenship and become American citizens, how many would? For many, being part of America with its lower tax rates and freedoms might be quite attractive. We could send a Republican and Democrat Senator to Washington and elect representatives to Congress and still have state and local Government. We could elect our judges.
Would you trade away your national identity and sovereignty?
Not at all, he said he was hopeful a Deal could be reached within 30 days just the mainstay of the Withdrawal Agreement would stay, however Macron did not rule out alternatives to the backstop being found so another good day for Boris
They are just making sure its Boris who gets the blame for no deal. We all know that there is no realistic alternative to the backstop.
And Boris of course is ensuring the EU get the blame with British swing voters if they refuse to accept a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop, so brilliant politics from Boris yet again so he looks reasonable and leaves No Deal as a last resort on October 31st
Not at all, he said he was hopeful a Deal could be reached within 30 days just the mainstay of the Withdrawal Agreement would stay, however Macron did not rule out alternatives to the backstop being found so another good day for Boris
They are just making sure its Boris who gets the blame for no deal. We all know that there is no realistic alternative to the backstop.
And Boris of course is ensuring the EU get the blame with British swing voters if they refuse to accept a technical solution for the Irish border rather than the backstop, so brilliant politics from Boris yet again so he looks reasonable and leaves No Deal as a last resort on October 31st
I wonder if Boris could try the following: put Theresa's WA back before parliament but say that he's re-negotiated it so that we can remove the backstop if we solve the Irish border problem at some point in future. I can't imagine too many MPs would fall for it, but it might be worth a try.
It would be a mistake to underestimate the stupidity of our MPs once again but even they probably know what the word "backstop" means.
A more nuanced approach would be if Boris comes to the Commons and says that he's had some chats with his newest, bestest mate, Varadkar and they are absolutely confident that a mutually acceptable arrangement will be hammered out within the transition period. What does the Commons do then?
Could it invite Mr. Varadkar to address them? That would be some theatre!
Brexit logic: If the EU drop the backstop, it only proves that they’ll do anything to lock us into the withdrawal agreement because it’s such a good deal for them.
That's not Brexit logic, its trying and failing to find a way to claim this is a defeat rather than a victory.
Ignore the Brexit Party, a WDA minus Backstop is the right solution for the UK and it will pass Parliament I guarantee it. It already did via the Brady Amendment and that was before remainers stared into the abyss of no deal.
Brexit logic: If the EU drop the backstop, it only proves that they’ll do anything to lock us into the withdrawal agreement because it’s such a good deal for them.
That's not Brexit logic, its trying and failing to find a way to claim this is a defeat rather than a victory.
Ignore the Brexit Party, a WDA minus Backstop is the right solution for the UK and it will pass Parliament I guarantee it. It already did via the Brady Amendment and that was before remainers stared into the abyss of no deal.
How many times? The WDA minus the backstop is not happening.
The issue of prorogation in 14 days following a VONC won't arise, but if it did HM the Queen's legal advisers would say that that the PM cannot validly ask for one so HM should not grant one. The FTPA assumes and requires the HoC to continue sitting during that 14 day period. It won't happen because our extremely able AG is a very sensible lawyer, and any politician who put the most popular lady on the planet in such an embarrassing position would be finished, and rightly so.
Thank the lord we are leaving. To describe this as 1970s thinking would be unfair to that decade.
Norway used it's oil to create a sovereign wealth fund, which has helped the country enormously. We used ours to close down our industry.
Norway, the mad impetuous fools that they are, actually has 2 wealth funds, the petro one worth around $1tr and a separate pensions one worth about $250bn which invests only in Scandi businesses.
Truss is right and you are wrong. Their name is simply Republic of Korea.
They have never been called South, never claimed to be South and do not call themselves South. South Korea is an informal name used in the west that they don't use and to use it formally would be diplomatically insulting them.
While signing a formal agreement with the Republic of Korea, for a British minister to refer to South Korea would be like signing an agreement with Ireland and calling them Southern Ireland.
No, West and East Germany is a better example, neither of which had West or East in their official names.
Competely off topic: What I find annoying is when Germans translate DDR into English as GDR. Yes it is the official English but outside of political documents or academic history articles very few English speakers use GDR, and many have no idea what it is. I deliberately use DDR in English as most people (at least my age and older) are familiar with the abbreviation in the same way that Germans understand UK and would not understand VK.
It's funny how usage varies. In Dutch the abbreviation VK is very common but in German it isn't really used, and the country is more often referred to as Großbritannien rather than das Vereinigte Königreich.
The fact Boris has had to go crawling to Berlin and Paris is pretty humiliating.
Quite funny how the no deal cult are celebrating the humiliation.
I wonder what mark Boris will get in his homework for Ms Merkel and Mr Macron.
I’m guessing an E.
He had to go crawling? There may have been negotiation, but what has he conceded?
Boris himself said he wouldn’t meet any EU leaders until they had agreed to remove the backstop.
He’s just making himself look even more of a fool than he already is.
Damn. I meant to include that in my piece last night and I forgot.
Interesting but irrelevant. The news agenda is written on water by a rapidly moving finger. It's like the 31st October promise. If Boris gets some sort of agreement by the end of that month but it is needing more time (highly likely) the broken promise is quickly forgotten.
The fact Boris has had to go crawling to Berlin and Paris is pretty humiliating.
Quite funny how the no deal cult are celebrating the humiliation.
I wonder what mark Boris will get in his homework for Ms Merkel and Mr Macron.
I’m guessing an E.
He had to go crawling? There may have been negotiation, but what has he conceded?
Boris himself said he wouldn’t meet any EU leaders until they had agreed to remove the backstop.
He’s just making himself look even more of a fool than he already is.
A 9% Tory lead with Yougov and a 42% Tory voteshare with Kantar this week suggests otherwise
Surely the Tories have lost your vote given you vehemently disagree with their flagship Brexit policy?
I am fully behind the Brexit policy of trying to remove the backstop from the Withdrawal Agreement and replace it with a technical solution
For the record, if the EU say, "This could be a solution, but we'll need to work on the details during the transition period," would you support ratifying the WA with the backstop?
On another issue, as a man "of the Right", can I ask, in the light of the furore over the proposed sale of Greenland, whether you would accept sovereignty is a commodity which can be bought or sold like any other?
Trump's idea has united the entire Danish political spectrum against him but from an economic standpoint it makes good sense for Copenhagen who are forced to subsidise the island. The wealthy Scots signed away their sovereignty and independence for the promise of getting rich off England (which many did).
What is sovereignty worth? IF a future American President offered every British man, woman and children 500,000 dollars to sign away their British citizenship and become American citizens, how many would? For many, being part of America with its lower tax rates and freedoms might be quite attractive. We could send a Republican and Democrat Senator to Washington and elect representatives to Congress and still have state and local Government. We could elect our judges.
Would you trade away your national identity and sovereignty?
Would I? No.
Would others? Yes.
See both Scottish Independence and Brexit as proof. A large number of swing voters in both referendums found arguments of economics and personal finances more compelling than sovereignty and identity. People here make fun of me for being an English Nationalist [yet find Scottish Nationalists understandable, go figure] but the reality is a lot of people are prepared to do that.
As for America, don't forget it has repeatedly added territory via purchase, so it is not an alien concept to them. Most famously the Louisiana Purchase [which was a LOT more than the modern State] but also the Florida Purchase, Alaska Purchase and Gadsden Purchase. By my estimate over a third of US territory was purchased.
Where Trump went wrong is in making it so crass and in the 21st century. If he'd suggested that the people of Greenland may want to be in the USA, that there be a referendum for them to decide and the US will give funds to Greenland [making it tempting for its voters] and a substantial payment to Denmark, then it may have come across as less crass and insulting.
I thought their argument was that the alternative goes in the PD, with the backstop staying in the WA? I don't think they've ever said they would remove it.
The fact Boris has had to go crawling to Berlin and Paris is pretty humiliating.
Quite funny how the no deal cult are celebrating the humiliation.
I wonder what mark Boris will get in his homework for Ms Merkel and Mr Macron.
I’m guessing an E.
He had to go crawling? There may have been negotiation, but what has he conceded?
Boris himself said he wouldn’t meet any EU leaders until they had agreed to remove the backstop.
He’s just making himself look even more of a fool than he already is.
Damn. I meant to include that in my piece last night and I forgot.
Interesting but irrelevant. The news agenda is written on water by a rapidly moving finger. It's like the 31st October promise. If Boris gets some sort of agreement by the end of that month but it is needing more time (highly likely) the broken promise is quickly forgotten.
That can’t be true. @HYUFD has assured me we’re leaving on the 31st October regardless.
I think if Johnson had negotiated the precise same deal as May, it'd be through the Commons by now. For all his faults he's clearly a better salesman than May ever was.
It would appear that the markets rather like whatever Boris is doing. Sterling up more than 1% today, back to over E1.10 again.
What rate was it when he took over? How is it doing against the dollar? Or even what rate was it before his signature policy of Brexit became likely???
Of course there will be days when it moves in opposite directions to the trend.
Comments
Careful. Spin any harder you're going to hurt yourself
Strangely enough, those here who claim to deplore the idea of No Deal Brexit don't seem to be very pleased. I just can't think why.
Now the rubicon of agreeing the WDA is amendable has been passed, all that is needed is a face-saving way out for Dublin who don't want no deal. Especially since as has been shown and the Brexiteers said all along, what matters is the national leaders here like Merkel.
Dublin doesn't want no deal, the backstop was a bluff. If Johnson and Varadkar do a joint press conference saying they've got a joint solution then it is game over. Parliament will grasp it, the EU will have to agree it.
This is very much mission possible.
Things are going exactly as I said they would for the past 12 months. I should rename myself The Oracle
- not even picking winners! In fact it sounds like they would pick losers.
The noises from both Germany and France should ensure Boris doesn't face a VONC on 4th September and if he does he should win it...
That's a big plus for him and for Brexit.
And its just possible they really do mean the WA can be opened up to look at the back stop... In which case we may actually end up leaving with an acceptable deal afterall...
Tick. Tock.
I think that the chances are significantly higher than this, but even if Alistair is right the 14/1 on a 2022 GE is value.
Ie if the Tories lose DUP support but gain SNP support theoretically they'd be able to regain Confidence.
Really FTPA is quiet and vague on the matter.
Not sure if I completely agree with that. If the Commons expressed a vote of confidence in someone else in that 14 days they would become PM. Of course if, as usual, they cannot agree amongst themselves then I do agree that the incumbent would stay by default.
Logic dictates then they will reach a deal.
For the avoidance of doubt, TD = Tropical Depression, not a member of the Irish parliament!
Despite someone's pointless one line nonsense, the real story is how desperate the Mail, Telegraph and the rest of the pro-Johnson media have become as it is clear their man is going to get as far on his European odyssey as both Theresa May and David Cameron did on theirs.
British PMs going looking like supplicants to Paris and Berlin never ends well despite the Pravda-style reporting from the pro-Boris brigade. The onus has always been on the UK to come up with the solutions to the problems and why not - we are the ones who decided to leave.
Getting an agreement between Boris and Varadkar is improbable.
Getting the backstop through Parliament is impossible.
Having Ireland want no deal to occur is impossible.
Having the EU throw Ireland under the bus is impossible.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
I originally said that if May became serious about no deal then it would, but she didn't. I always said she wasn't serious so they wouldn't until she either changed or was replaced. By the time of the Tory Confidence vote I was long saying May had failed because she wasn't serious about no deal so she had to go and be replaced by someone who could be.
It is nevertheless the most likely outcome.
As we are talking about Bozo, I assume that the first letter is a typo.
*runs away from Ms Cyclefree....*
https://twitter.com/benhabib6/status/1164529196900802560?s=21
We used ours to close down our industry.
We'd probably have 8 down by now.
What I find annoying is when Germans translate DDR into English as GDR. Yes it is the official English but outside of political documents or academic history articles very few English speakers use GDR, and many have no idea what it is. I deliberately use DDR in English as most people (at least my age and older) are familiar with the abbreviation in the same way that Germans understand UK and would not understand VK.
A more nuanced approach would be if Boris comes to the Commons and says that he's had some chats with his newest, bestest mate, Varadkar and they are absolutely confident that a mutually acceptable arrangement will be hammered out within the transition period. What does the Commons do then?
Fair enough but if the ordinary voter should have known that so should the UK Government so I'm forced to ask why preparations for a No Deal weren't started as soon as A50 was triggered on 29/3/17 so that if No Deal looked likely we would be ready. I'm forced to conclude, like you, the UK Government never seriously contemplated a No Deal exit and the palpable sense of panic earlier this year was proof.
On another issue, as a man "of the Right", can I ask, in the light of the furore over the proposed sale of Greenland, whether you would accept sovereignty is a commodity which can be bought or sold like any other?
Trump's idea has united the entire Danish political spectrum against him but from an economic standpoint it makes good sense for Copenhagen who are forced to subsidise the island. The wealthy Scots signed away their sovereignty and independence for the promise of getting rich off England (which many did).
What is sovereignty worth? IF a future American President offered every British man, woman and children 500,000 dollars to sign away their British citizenship and become American citizens, how many would? For many, being part of America with its lower tax rates and freedoms might be quite attractive. We could send a Republican and Democrat Senator to Washington and elect representatives to Congress and still have state and local Government. We could elect our judges.
Would you trade away your national identity and sovereignty?
Quite funny how the no deal cult are celebrating the humiliation.
I wonder what mark Boris will get in his homework for Ms Merkel and Mr Macron.
I’m guessing an E.
Ignore the Brexit Party, a WDA minus Backstop is the right solution for the UK and it will pass Parliament I guarantee it. It already did via the Brady Amendment and that was before remainers stared into the abyss of no deal.
He’s just making himself look even more of a fool than he already is.
The unicorns have escaped again this afternoon.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7383133/Prince-William-wife-Kate-Middleton-children-seen-boarding-budget-flight-Scotland.html
Norway, the mad impetuous fools that they are, actually has 2 wealth funds, the petro one worth around $1tr and a separate pensions one worth about $250bn which invests only in Scandi businesses.
Would others? Yes.
See both Scottish Independence and Brexit as proof. A large number of swing voters in both referendums found arguments of economics and personal finances more compelling than sovereignty and identity. People here make fun of me for being an English Nationalist [yet find Scottish Nationalists understandable, go figure] but the reality is a lot of people are prepared to do that.
As for America, don't forget it has repeatedly added territory via purchase, so it is not an alien concept to them. Most famously the Louisiana Purchase [which was a LOT more than the modern State] but also the Florida Purchase, Alaska Purchase and Gadsden Purchase. By my estimate over a third of US territory was purchased.
Where Trump went wrong is in making it so crass and in the 21st century. If he'd suggested that the people of Greenland may want to be in the USA, that there be a referendum for them to decide and the US will give funds to Greenland [making it tempting for its voters] and a substantial payment to Denmark, then it may have come across as less crass and insulting.
Of course there will be days when it moves in opposite directions to the trend.