Mr. Brom, aye. The Pussyfooting Parliament will probably vote for whatever avoids them actually making a decision, though.
It was always thus. Thankfully they cannot buy time forever and the mood music seems to be leaning towards the impasse ending.
I think we may all be underestimating the appetite Parliament collectively has for this to continue indefinitely.
I can’t see how Boris gets an election any time soon.
SNP might want an election before Alex is in court for alleged sex crimes at the end of January.
Lib-Dems will be up for it as they expect to make gains.
Not sure what DUP would do.
Con + SNP + Lib-Dem might be enough for a one line bill.
I was talking to a Lib Dem MP recently who told me that they aren't seeking an election soon. They think they will gain seats but there're worried about the Conservatives flopping over the line thanks to Corbyn's unpopularity. What they really want is Corbyn gone.
That sounds odd.
If Jezza goes a lot of Lab > Lib-Dem switchers could go back to Labour and if someone like Starmer takes over a lot of Con > Lib-Dem Remain switchers might be tempted to go to Labour too.
For the Lib-Dems it would be much better to have an election with Jezza still leading Lab I'd have thought?
Not so. The Liberals need a hung parliament where they hold the balance of power. They do NOT want a Tory majority.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Not exactly.....
"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market" Daniel Hannan MEP
"Only a madman would actually leave the Market" Owen Paterson MP, Vote Leave backer
"Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" Nigel Farage, Ukip leader
"The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people" Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
"Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK" Arron Banks, Leave.EU founder
The mandate of the referendum is to leave - nothing more. Anything beyond that is up for debate (and I say the same thing to supporters of a soft Brexit).
You know multiple of those quotes are discredited fake news?
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
OK, the Eliot one looks out of context - that's lazy from huffpost.
The others are exact quotes though. Nothing remotely misleading about them.
The medium post is also meaningless wrt Switzerland - quibbling about EEA vs non-EEA access to the single market? That's a difference of fractions, and utterly meaningless.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
There was a vox pop yesterday with someone saying, "I'm sick of us sending all that money to Europe when we could be spending it on hospitals."
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
100% agreed. That is two very significant changes from Saturday to now and it would be inappropriate not to demonstrate to the letters recipients whether or not there is an agreement in principle with a meaningful vote.
Against that, you have to put an explicit decision of the House not to give approval until the legislation has passed. Very difficult to see the rule being broken on that basis.
Should be possible to come up with a formulation that says "we agree to this in principle, now pass the legislation" - the amended version on Saturday didn't even agree in principle.
The only function of this motion is to satisfy the European Union (Withdrawl) Act 2019. That specified: "the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown"
Whether a conditional approval, subject to a condition that is later met, would be sufficient is a matter for the lawyers. But so long as there's doubt about the passage of the WAIB I don't really see the point of the meaningful vote in itself. Unless a conditional approval would help with the timetable for ratification by the European Parliament.
Also several mps who said they support a customs union have said they will not now
With the DUP against a customs union and others it does look as if the custom union amendment is unlilely to pass
Furthermore in the Downing Street briefing this morning the PM spokesperson has said if a custom union is attached it changes everything and the PM will stop the deal and call an election
I believe the LDs and TIG MPs voted against a customs union last time. Would they change their position to sabotage the WAIB?
She's probably having a mouthful of grief off her constitutents. I know our Labour MP has been shouted at by angry, ordinary voters... I also saw on Twitter yesterday that a Lab member (and Remainer) working in a northern constituency reluctantly posted that people were unhappy that this is dragging on and that it was taking its toll on the Labour MP.
I suspect that any MP who has been faced with a constituent since Saturday has had a bad time of it.
I hate to go all anecdotal again but I do think there has been a definite shift in mood since the deal was agreed. A lot of people I have spoken to, who I would say range from being casually interested in politics through to not really following the going’s-on, have expressed to me varying degrees of frustration and a desire to just get on and do it. Many of those I’ve spoken to think it was a mistake to vote to leave.
This isnt a ramping post, but just speaking as I find.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
I'm a part of the public and I remember them campaigning about the other things.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yes the all UK backstop was clearly designed with them in mind.
Far too much is being made of votes for a second reading . It means bugger all until we see what happens with amendments.
Some might support the second reading and then ditch support afterwards .
Is that really true, given that the deal itself is not open to being amended. All the MPs will know that.
The very first step is for parliament to vote in favour of something.
Once they have, dynamics will shift - and there really is no practical way now to lock in a particular outcome for the long-term relationship with the EU. A GE will have to happen before that can be settled.
If they vote for the second reading of the WAIB tomorrow they will be voting in favour of the deal. Just as much as they would be in the meaningful vote. In fact more so, because they would have seen the legislation.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
I'm a part of the public and I remember them campaigning about the other things.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
It is literally the mandate. A malign and dishonest one, and that’s the problem.
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
That is right. This Deal is Brexit the Event. It implements the 2016 referendum. Whether it ends up Hard or Soft, or something in between, depends on the complexion of the UK government in the years to come. That will be Brexit the Process. But to commence the Process the Event must first take place.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Only two things about Vote Leave’s campaign stuck with the public: the lie on the bus and the xenophobia. You get the mandate to hose the NHS with money and to be unpleasant to foreigners. The rest is all up for debate.
An amount of money quoted by a politician is by and large greeted with a 'sigh' and 'whatever'. Believability and resonance 2/10
By and large Xenophobia is a term used by people who show reluctance to allow debate on immigration. It is not xenophobic to discuss immigration. Gordon Brown hold the political prize for Xenophobia with British Jobs for British Gulags, or was it workers?
It is a great comfort blanket but meaningless rhetoric to shout Xenophobia Bus and Death Cult at any and every opportunity.
Jobs, Pay, Services, Housing and such issues were relevant, no doubt some link with xenophobic ideals could be made. Just depends on the cart and egg, or do I mean chicken and horse?
...It's funny how opponents of Leave/Boris don't get this. Repeatedly saying we were leaving by Oct 31 has got us a deal that will pass (if they let anyone vote on it). Who cares if its in November or December?...
For reasons previously explained, my proximate concern is not whether we leave with a Deal in October, November or December, it's whether we leave with No Deal.
OK, the Eliot one looks out of context - that's lazy from huffpost.
The others are exact quotes though. Nothing remotely misleading about them.
The medium post is also meaningless wrt Switzerland - quibbling about EEA vs non-EEA access to the single market? That's a difference of fractions, and utterly meaningless.
Daily Politics did a 10 minute video that tore Open Britain's video to shreds including showing in video the fuller quotes or many of those quotes. Entirely misleading. Take Paterson, he specifically says we would trade with Europe as part of the market after leaving the Single Market.
If you're going to continue to share discredited lies watch this first. From 4 minutes on fuller quotations are shown.
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
You're right, we should follow the mandate of BOTH Leavers AND Remainers who during the referendum said that Leaving would mean out of the Single Market. In fact many Remainers specifically warned that Leaving would risk No Deal and WTO terms.
Only two things about Vote Leave’s campaign stuck with the public: the lie on the bus and the xenophobia. You get the mandate to hose the NHS with money and to be unpleasant to foreigners. The rest is all up for debate.
An amount of money quoted by a politician is by and large greeted with a 'sigh' and 'whatever'. Believability and resonance 2/10
By and large Xenophobia is a term used by people who show reluctance to allow debate on immigration. It is not xenophobic to discuss immigration. Gordon Brown hold the political prize for Xenophobia with British Jobs for British Gulags, or was it workers?
It is a great comfort blanket but meaningless rhetoric to shout Xenophobia Bus and Death Cult at any and every opportunity.
It’s Leavers who scream till they’re red in the face that various forms of Brexit aren’t Brexit. But they have no basis for doing so and get upset when their actual mandate is pointed out.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
There was a vox pop yesterday with someone saying, "I'm sick of us sending all that money to Europe when we could be spending it on hospitals."
That message is only going to get more potent as we come into the annual NHS winter crisis.
"Well, if we'd left we'd 'ave all that money by now.... What are them bloody MPs playin' at?"
Mr. Brom, aye. The Pussyfooting Parliament will probably vote for whatever avoids them actually making a decision, though.
It was always thus. Thankfully they cannot buy time forever and the mood music seems to be leaning towards the impasse ending.
I think we may all be underestimating the appetite Parliament collectively has for this to continue indefinitely.
I can’t see how Boris gets an election any time soon.
SNP might want an election before Alex is in court for alleged sex crimes at the end of January.
Lib-Dems will be up for it as they expect to make gains.
Not sure what DUP would do.
Con + SNP + Lib-Dem might be enough for a one line bill.
I was talking to a Lib Dem MP recently who told me that they aren't seeking an election soon. They think they will gain seats but there're worried about the Conservatives flopping over the line thanks to Corbyn's unpopularity. What they really want is Corbyn gone.
That sounds odd.
If Jezza goes a lot of Lab > Lib-Dem switchers could go back to Labour and if someone like Starmer takes over a lot of Con > Lib-Dem Remain switchers might be tempted to go to Labour too.
For the Lib-Dems it would be much better to have an election with Jezza still leading Lab I'd have thought?
Maybe they'd rather provide the C&S to a Lab-SNP-LD government than see another 1983 result. Current polls don't lead to a Lab-SNP-LD govt.
Some polls do suggest another Hung Parliament with the Tories losing seats.
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yep, it is a mystery to me, too. The DUP has done all it can to bring about a Brexit that goes directly against everything they stand for. And now we are at the point where their constituents will need to fill in customs forms to send stuff to the UK mainland. It is also now very clear that the ERG never had the slightest interest in supporting Northern Irish unionism, they just wanted the votes.
Does no one else find it strange how nuts the DUP have been going this week
Well the DUP are generally quite strange and "enraged" seems to be their default position.
That said you could well be on to something here.
The deal is a bloody good one for NI but DUP have to play to their voters who are probably even madder than the official DUP lol!
I think they'll go for the deal if they're given a bridge. It's the right thing to do. NI, massive bridge connecting it with the mainland, shows commitment to its future presence in the Union.
A bridge to nowhere? Where do you suggest that this bridge go to? Across the North Channel to Stranraer perhaps? Or maybe you favour a link to the southern tip of the Kintyre peninsula?
I contend that you know precisely nothing about civil engineering and even less about economic geography.
It's not fair to come to such a narrow judgement. There are whole swathes of knowledge and understanding that luckyguy1983 lacks, not just engineering and economics. I've seen him display a rich and varied depth of ignorance on a wide range of subjects.
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
That is right. This Deal is Brexit the Event. It implements the 2016 referendum. Whether it ends up Hard or Soft, or something in between, depends on the complexion of the UK government in the years to come. That will be Brexit the Process. But to commence the Process the Event must first take place.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
There was a vox pop yesterday with someone saying, "I'm sick of us sending all that money to Europe when we could be spending it on hospitals."
Wait until they find out we send more money to Northern Ireland then we do to "Europe".
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
There was a vox pop yesterday with someone saying, "I'm sick of us sending all that money to Europe when we could be spending it on hospitals."
Wait until they find out we send more money to Northern Ireland then we do to "Europe".
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for the general election result to take effect, but modified significantly so that the party with the most seats does not become the government. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For the GE to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. The victorious Labour/Con/Lib Dem govt must not feel like the property of any single group.
A continuing parliamentary cluster***k would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum.
Fair point - and honest attempts at compromise on both sides have been scant. Both Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy deserve huge credit for trying, even at this late stage.
Compromise or rolling over in order to save their own jobs?
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
By and large Xenophobia is a term used by people who show reluctance to allow debate on immigration. It is not xenophobic to discuss immigration. Gordon Brown hold the political prize for Xenophobia with British Jobs for British Gulags, or was it workers?
It is a great comfort blanket but meaningless rhetoric to shout Xenophobia Bus and Death Cult at any and every opportunity.
Xenophobia is often a term used to describe racism by people who are (i) uncomfortable using the R word, and/or (ii) wish to demonstrate a good vocabulary. For example, I often find myself in (i).
And, no, it is not X or R to have concerns about immigration. However, if someone has immigration as their numero uno political issue, and talks about it way more than they do any other issue, it is highly probable that such a person is X and/or R.
The truth will only slip out now that the government is going to publish the WAIB .
Do people honestly think that’s not going to contain some controversial detail . This is why they’re trying to get the MV passed so that they can withdraw the extension before MPs see the WAIB.
Take Paterson, he specifically says we would trade with Europe as part of the market after leaving the Single Market.
He specifically said: "Only a madman would actually _leave_ the market". To coin a phrase, leave means leave.
He's trying to be deliberately misleading, that you can have full access without being inside the single market. Labour had the same thing as part of their official policy very recently.
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
You mean the squealers and bitchers who squeal and bitch about our democratic parliamentary process? That's harsh on those leavers but I can see where you're coming from.
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
But just a week ago you said "news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind".
Take Paterson, he specifically says we would trade with Europe as part of the market after leaving the Single Market.
He specifically said: "Only a madman would actually _leave_ the market". To coin a phrase, leave means leave.
He's trying to be deliberately misleading, that you can have full access without being inside the single market. Labour had the same thing as part of their official policy very recently.
No he wasn't, watch the fuller quote I've already given you. As he said the market is global, to leave the market we would need to be "like South Sudan or North Korea".
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
No, they haven't. They've come up with a deal that works. That's not the same as slaughtering 20,000 innocents.
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yep, it is a mystery to me, too. The DUP has done all it can to bring about a Brexit that goes directly against everything they stand for. And now we are at the point where their constituents will need to fill in customs forms to send stuff to the UK mainland. It is also now very clear that the ERG never had the slightest interest in supporting Northern Irish unionism, they just wanted the votes.
The ERGers didn't support May's deal because there was a chance it would prevent them turning England into Singapore on the Thames, the UK wide backstop. They have no problem sacrificing NI to the "dreaded EU" (despite the fact this will be pretty beneficial to NI over the UK, especially Scotland) because that gives the best of both worlds; a GB that can buccaneer with FTAs that allow chlorinated chicken and low low taxes (and none of the tax transparency rules due to be enforced in the EU by January) with an NI that can still have all the benefits of the EU.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Vote against a customs union Vote against a referendum Vote against the deal
The likely result being the deal passes but they can say they stayed true to their principles
And as was discussed on 5 live business this morning NI receive a fantastic deal that a substantial majority want and the DUP retain their purity
I suspect the DUP's desire for revenge and wish to punish Johnson is rather stronger than that.
The DUP don't do punishment and revenge. They are absolutely focused on their objectives.
There are times when a reputation for revenge are important, but this isn't one of them. If they bring down the government then Corbyn gets in. That's worse.
I'm going to go out on a limb. An attempt to 11th hour VONC the govt if amendments are defeated and Brexit is about to happen will not only fail, it will destroy the labour party. It would be an appalling act of sabotage. Perfectly valid once the process is complete, before that (and at the 11th hour) unforgivable
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yep, it is a mystery to me, too. The DUP has done all it can to bring about a Brexit that goes directly against everything they stand for. And now we are at the point where their constituents will need to fill in customs forms to send stuff to the UK mainland. It is also now very clear that the ERG never had the slightest interest in supporting Northern Irish unionism, they just wanted the votes.
The ERGers didn't support May's deal because there was a chance it would prevent them turning England into Singapore on the Thames, the UK wide backstop. They have no problem sacrificing NI to the "dreaded EU" (despite the fact this will be pretty beneficial to NI over the UK, especially Scotland) because that gives the best of both worlds; a GB that can buccaneer with FTAs that allow chlorinated chicken and low low taxes (and none of the tax transparency rules due to be enforced in the EU by January) with an NI that can still have all the benefits of the EU.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yep, it is a mystery to me, too. The DUP has done all it can to bring about a Brexit that goes directly against everything they stand for. And now we are at the point where their constituents will need to fill in customs forms to send stuff to the UK mainland. It is also now very clear that the ERG never had the slightest interest in supporting Northern Irish unionism, they just wanted the votes.
Going back to the Brexit trilemma, they want the outcome that would have led to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, for all the reasons that Johnson's deal is bad for them that would have entrenched division and made unification less likely.
Given that the EU and Parliament won't allow that option there is no deal that they look likely to accept.
No he wasn't, watch the fuller quote I've already given you. As he said the market is global, to leave the market we would need to be "like South Sudan or North Korea".
Barclays admission that NI businesses will have to complete export declaration forms to send goods to mainland Britain is going to enrage the DUP .
The Bozo guff that NI is still within the UK customs territory is yet another lie .
I expect all out war from the DUP now , they are going to do whatever it takes to kill this deal.
Yes, and that could, in the worst (or best?) case mean supporting an opposition VONC to bring down the government before the WAIB is passed.
That requires Corbyn to actually set a VoNC in motion.
Corbyn has said repeatedly that he wants an election after the extension is in place. If the DUP offer support for a VONC he would certainly go ahead with it IMO.
The not sending a letter thing is honestly the biggest load of guff. I get a feeling there are actually quite a lot of people disappointed that he DID send the letter
The people who should be disappointed are the ones who believed him when he said he wouldn't
Taking people for fools his entire life
It was a negotiating strategy.
Parliament attempted to hamstring that approach.
It resulted in a deal despite their best efforts.
It worked (possibly) in conjunction with the Benn Act by the mechanism of Boris boxing himself in so much that he was compelled to drop his entire set of objections to the existing deal except for going back to the EU's previous offer of a special arrangement for NI, which was always available (in fact, preferred by the EU). A curious sort of victory.
The point is that many, I would say most, Leavers dont care! They just want what they voted for, us to Leave, done, and if that gets done, the details that Remainers obsess over to gain small wins for their ego's, don't matter.
But surely they voted to Leave to get the benefits of a Leave vote? If those benefits don’t happen won’t that bother them?
And if it won’t why not have a BINO then?
Because we are in the absurd situation where, nearly three and a half years after Leave won the referendum, MPs (who we were told would NOT have the final say), are refusing to pass a withdrawal agreement, and still hankering for Remain a la that old BBC show "Life without George"
I understand that. I wasn’t trying to make a clever point. I was asking why those who wanted Leave wouldn’t want to see the benefits accruing to them as a result of their vote. Would they be as indifferent to that as you seem to suggest? It’s a genuine question.
BINO as a way of actually Leaving isn't so bad, because the side that lost the referendum have done everything they can to stop us leaving. I said pretty much from the start that I would accept any thing that got us out officially, because I was pretty sure the Remainers would keep trying to get a rerun as long as we weren't offically out.
Once we are out, things will evolve with each passing govt, some more Eurosceptic than others
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
But just a week ago you said "news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind".
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
No, they haven't. They've come up with a deal that works. That's not the same as slaughtering 20,000 innocents.
I think you need your moral compass adjusting.
They’ve come up with a deal that on the government’s own figures will cause massive economic damage in order to grind Remainers into the dust.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
"Dear Mr President
SNIP
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
Has HYFUD explained yet how this is not a letter?
I'm sure he's working on it.
Poll on what Leavers consider to constitute a letter heading your way soon.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
I'm a part of the public and I remember them campaigning about the other things.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
It is literally the mandate. A malign and dishonest one, and that’s the problem.
That’s literally nonsense. If a company has five adverts I.e Cadbury’s dairy milk drumming monkey are you denying there were no other adverts, no other messages just because one cut through?
Or are you saying that how political messages are understood makes them true. Conservatives banged on about the deficit coming down, but most people understood that as debt and therefore the conservatives had a mandate to bring the debt down!
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
Exactly.
All we have had for 3 1/2 years is the losing campaign plotting to over turn the result. They may use flowery language to impress each other, and feel clever at finding ways of stopping their defeat meaning anything, but that's all it is.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
I'm a part of the public and I remember them campaigning about the other things.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
It is literally the mandate. A malign and dishonest one, and that’s the problem.
That’s literally nonsense. If a company has five adverts I.e Cadbury’s dairy milk drumming monkey are you denying there were no other adverts, no other messages just because one cut through?
Or are you saying that how political messages are understood makes them true. Conservatives banged on about the deficit coming down, but most people understood that as debt and therefore the conservatives had a mandate to bring the debt down!
How do you derive a mandate from a message that no one heard?
Vote against a customs union Vote against a referendum Vote against the deal
The likely result being the deal passes but they can say they stayed true to their principles
And as was discussed on 5 live business this morning NI receive a fantastic deal that a substantial majority want and the DUP retain their purity
I suspect the DUP's desire for revenge and wish to punish Johnson is rather stronger than that.
The DUP don't do punishment and revenge. They are absolutely focused on their objectives.
There are times when a reputation for revenge are important, but this isn't one of them. If they bring down the government then Corbyn gets in. That's worse.
Not necessarily. Corbyn's stated policy is to seek a new withdrawal agreement remaining closer to the EU economically, which would avoid the need for a GB/NI customs border.
Anyway, the upshot of a VONC would probably be a general election which might well result in a completely different kind of Brexit, or even none at all.
The not sending a letter thing is honestly the biggest load of guff. I get a feeling there are actually quite a lot of people disappointed that he DID send the letter
The people who should be disappointed are the ones who believed him when he said he wouldn't
Taking people for fools his entire life
It was a negotiating strategy.
Parliament attempted to hamstring that approach.
It resulted in a deal despite their best efforts.
It worked (possibly) in conjunction with the Benn Act by the mechanism of Boris boxing himself in so much that he was compelled to drop his entire set of objections to the existing deal except for going back to the EU's previous offer of a special arrangement for NI, which was always available (in fact, preferred by the EU). A curious sort of victory.
.
But surely they voted to Leave to get the benefits of a Leave vote? If those benefits don’t happen won’t that bother them?
And if it won’t why not have a BINO then?
Because we are in the absurd situation where, nearly three and a half years after Leave won the referendum, MPs (who we were told would NOT have the final say), are refusing to pass a withdrawal agreement, and still hankering for Remain a la that old BBC show "Life without George"
I understand that. I wasn’t trying to make a clever point. I was asking why those who wanted Leave wouldn’t want to see the benefits accruing to them as a result of their vote. Would they be as indifferent to that as you seem to suggest? It’s a genuine question.
BINO as a way of actually Leaving isn't so bad, because the side that lost the referendum have done everything they can to stop us leaving. I said pretty much from the start that I would accept any thing that got us out officially, because I was pretty sure the Remainers would keep trying to get a rerun as long as we weren't offically out.
Once we are out, things will evolve with each passing govt, some more Eurosceptic than others
That last point is key - once we’re out new dynamics take over. Rejoining is a very different proposition to Remaining - and perhaps Leaving too will also be seen differently if this drags on interminably.
Seems to me this is really the last chance saloon for both sides - whoever wins this week takes the prize.
I expect only a few thousand people would have seen Farage's poster if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched quite so loudly about it. It was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
But just a week ago you said "news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind".
I don't think I did.
You did. Here's your full quote, I've just copied and pasted it: "You seem to think that it matters what the BBC says but news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind. In fact we could and should shut down all the newspapers in the country and it wouldn't change a thing."
I must say I'm enjoying the contortions as it is explained that it is important to note that prominent Leave campaigners didn't say we should stay in the Single Market, but that it is of no importance that they said there would be a smooth transition and that we'd be part of a free-trade European area with no tariffs and no disruption to supply chains.
Things that have changed since Saturday 1. The letter has been sent and an extension is being considered. 2. The recipients of the letter have asked for confirmation that there is an agreement in principle.
is that not enough?
No.
An extension, if offered, has to be accepted.
But in deciding whether or not to grant an extension the EU want evidence that we are actually committed to this deal, unlike the last one we agreed with them. It doesn't seem an unreasonable request.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Be careful @topping - you are straying into dangerous territory
No he wasn't, watch the fuller quote I've already given you. As he said the market is global, to leave the market we would need to be "like South Sudan or North Korea".
This wasn't an uncommon position for leavers back then - that we should leave the EU but remain in EFTA.
Note the date of that interview, 2015, where he is stating it as one option. The referendum campaign was 2016 and all Leave campaigners signed up to Leaving the Single Market as the explicit proposal backed in the campaign. Find a quote in 2016 during the campaign.
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
Exactly.
All we have had for 3 1/2 years is the losing campaign plotting to over turn the result. They may use flowery language to impress each other, and feel clever at finding ways of stopping their defeat meaning anything, but that's all it is.
All we have had is 3 1/2 years of the Conservative Governments failing to come up with a plan to leave the EU that Parliament can support by voting for the plan.
Thank you for the article. In most cases it consisted of the author stating that the speaker really meant something different when he said the words. Specifically:
The Hannan quote The author states that Hannan did not mean "threatening our membership in the Single Market" when he said "threatening our place in the Single Market", and made that clear later on in the interview. Fair enough, but it's very badly phrased and the listener could be forgiven for thinking Hannan meant what he actually said.
The Paterson quote The author states that Paterson meant “Only a madman would actually stop trading with the market” when he said “Only a madman would actually leave the market”, and points out that he later said that we would “carry on trading with the market”. This is more badly phrased than Hannan's and would lead the listener to believe that he meant two contradictory things simultaneously
The Farage quote The author states that since Switzerland is not in the Single Market, his statement that “Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland?" cannot be taken as a statement that we should not leave it. Fair enough.
The Elliott quote The author states that when Matthew Elliot said “The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally (sic) attractive for some business people”, he was outlining the beliefs of those people, not speaking of his own position nor advocating it. Fair enough, but the quote as it stands is exactly true: If I say "Dogs like bones", I am not advocating that I like bones or that you should eat bones, I am telling you that dogs like bones. Matthew said what he said and meant what he said.
The Banks quote the author agrees that Arron Banks said “Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK”, but points out that Banks was not part of the official Leave campaign (he was Leave.EU, not Vote Leave). OK, but again Arron said what he said and meant what he said.
So of the five quotes, Hannan and Paterson's were bad phrasing on their part and Elliott and Banks's were quoted correctly. He's right about Farage tho.
(Parenthetically, both Farage and Banks say what they mean and mean what they say and don't usually indulge in sophistry. Annoying, yes, worrying, yes, but unclear or dishonest? Not often. If Farage hadn't turned into a CPAC groupie he'd deserve a place in the Lords)
Does no one else find it strange how nuts the DUP have been going this week
Well the DUP are generally quite strange and "enraged" seems to be their default position.
That said you could well be on to something here.
The deal is a bloody good one for NI but DUP have to play to their voters who are probably even madder than the official DUP lol!
I think they'll go for the deal if they're given a bridge. It's the right thing to do. NI, massive bridge connecting it with the mainland, shows commitment to its future presence in the Union.
A bridge to nowhere? Where do you suggest that this bridge go to? Across the North Channel to Stranraer perhaps? Or maybe you favour a link to the southern tip of the Kintyre peninsula?
I contend that you know precisely nothing about civil engineering and even less about economic geography.
It's not fair to come to such a narrow judgement. There are whole swathes of knowledge and understanding that luckyguy1983 lacks, not just engineering and economics. I've seen him display a rich and varied depth of ignorance on a wide range of subjects.
I’d like to see bridges to north and south and a motorway linking the two. It would make it quicker to get to Scotland by avoiding the m1 or m6! One could be named after Boris and the other after Corbyn
The DUP understands correctly that a united Ireland economically leads inexorably to a united Ireland full stop. As Wilson made clear in the Commons on Saturday, under the Johnson plan London ecomomic and trade policy will become less and less important in Ulster, what will matter is what Dublin thinks - and that's where the lobbying will take place as a result.
You have to laugh: they should have supported the May deal. In fact, I never really understood why they didn't, it was clearly the best possible option for them given that they supported Leave in the first place.
Yep, it is a mystery to me, too. The DUP has done all it can to bring about a Brexit that goes directly against everything they stand for. And now we are at the point where their constituents will need to fill in customs forms to send stuff to the UK mainland. It is also now very clear that the ERG never had the slightest interest in supporting Northern Irish unionism, they just wanted the votes.
The ERGers didn't support May's deal because there was a chance it would prevent them turning England into Singapore on the Thames, the UK wide backstop. They have no problem sacrificing NI to the "dreaded EU" (despite the fact this will be pretty beneficial to NI over the UK, especially Scotland) because that gives the best of both worlds; a GB that can buccaneer with FTAs that allow chlorinated chicken and low low taxes (and none of the tax transparency rules due to be enforced in the EU by January) with an NI that can still have all the benefits of the EU.
Sounds good to me.
So big business and banking trumps the union and the welfare state (including the NHS). If Leavers want that to be the case, please own it.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Be careful @topping - you are straying into dangerous territory
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
No, they haven't. They've come up with a deal that works. That's not the same as slaughtering 20,000 innocents.
I think you need your moral compass adjusting.
They’ve come up with a deal that on the government’s own figures will cause massive economic damage in order to grind Remainers into the dust.
That isn’t what the Government’s figures say. They say we will grow less slowly - it’s wilfully misleading to call that “damage“. Words matter.
And that’s without pointing out that we haven’t yet negotiated a deal, and the likely end state (should we leave at all) will be a closely aligned EEA type arrangement.
However, no objective or rational person would support the U.K. being in a CU with the European Union. Ask Norway - it’s just a silly idea. But you know that really. If anything, I feel sorry for you having to pretend you agree with this nonsense.
AlastairMeeks said: "There are multiple different ways to Leave. The method did not become the private property of Leavers just because they won the referendum."
Agree - but the method must qualify as being brexit. If we can`t make trade deals around the world as an independant country then it isn`t brexit.
If that had been important to Leavers they should have campaigned about it. But they decided to race-bait and lie about the cost. That’s now their problem.
You're lying or mistaken, they did campaign about it. Repeatedly and loudly.
Not their fault ignoramuses like yourself bang on about other things.
Literally those are the only two things the public remember about the Vote Leave campaign.
I'm a part of the public and I remember them campaigning about the other things.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
It is literally the mandate. A malign and dishonest one, and that’s the problem.
That’s literally nonsense. If a company has five adverts I.e Cadbury’s dairy milk drumming monkey are you denying there were no other adverts, no other messages just because one cut through?
Or are you saying that how political messages are understood makes them true. Conservatives banged on about the deficit coming down, but most people understood that as debt and therefore the conservatives had a mandate to bring the debt down!
How do you derive a mandate from a message that no one heard?
Political parties do it at every election with their manifestos. That is their mandate not just the one popular or unpopular policy that got all the press
Thank you for the article. In most cases it consisted of the author stating that the speaker really meant something different when he said the words. Specifically:
The Hannan quote The author states that Hannan did not mean "threatening our membership in the Single Market" when he said "threatening our place in the Single Market", and made that clear later on in the interview. Fair enough, but it's very badly phrased and the listener could be forgiven for thinking Hannan meant what he actually said.
The Paterson quote The author states that Paterson meant “Only a madman would actually stop trading with the market” when he said “Only a madman would actually leave the market”, and points out that he later said that we would “carry on trading with the market”. This is more badly phrased than Hannan's and would lead the listener to believe that he meant two contradictory things simultaneously
The Farage quote The author states that since Switzerland is not in the Single Market, his statement that “Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland?" cannot be taken as a statement that we should not leave it. Fair enough.
The Elliott quote The author states that when Matthew Elliot said “The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally (sic) attractive for some business people”, he was outlining the beliefs of those people, not speaking of his own position nor advocating it. Fair enough, but the quote as it stands is exactly true: If I say "Dogs like bones", I am not advocating that I like bones or that you should eat bones, I am telling you that dogs like bones. Matthew said what he said and meant what he said.
The Banks quote the author agrees that Arron Banks said “Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK”, but points out that Banks was not part of the official Leave campaign (he was Leave.EU, not Vote Leave). OK, but again Arron said what he said and meant what he said.
So of the five quotes, Hannan and Paterson's were bad phrasing on their part and Elliott and Banks's were quoted correctly. He's right about Farage tho.
(Parenthetically, both Farage and Banks say what they mean and mean what they say and don't usually indulge in sophistry. Annoying, yes, worrying, yes, but unclear or dishonest? Not often. If Farage hadn't turned into a CPAC groupie he'd deserve a place in the Lords)
But as the author points out pulling out part of a spoken statement as if it was a given quote to a specific issue is not really correct
i) We had a vote to leave the EU ii) THere was an election, both main parties at thetime supported leaving the EU. iii) It's now getting round to being implemented. (Better late than never some may say) - in addition the implementation is more popular than the previous attempt at implementation. iv) The implementation fulfills i) BUT we immediately head into transition. v) Once we're in transition we can have a General Election and that Gov't decides the future relationship. The idea the EU wouldn't discuss a future relationship inside the single market but outside the Customs Union (Norway) subject to the NI provisions laid out in the WA is for the birds should say Labour win the next GE if that's what Corbyn wanted to do. And Norway is now possible with the new WA in a way it wasn't possible before.
What the ref winners want to see (Leave) is simply the result being implemented. Our relationship with Europe is all up for grabs in the next phase.
Exactly.
All we have had for 3 1/2 years is the losing campaign plotting to over turn the result. They may use flowery language to impress each other, and feel clever at finding ways of stopping their defeat meaning anything, but that's all it is.
Nope. You have also had the largely indifferent (happy to stay, happy to leave for efta or whatever) forming the conclusion that while the 2016 campaign looked like standard twat-on-twat action, it turns out Remain were just twats within the normal parameters while those driving Leave render the words utter c-nt obsolete and inadequate as a term of abuse. The "sore loser" argument vanished from the rear view mirror years ago.
Does no one else find it strange how nuts the DUP have been going this week
Well the DUP are generally quite strange and "enraged" seems to be their default position.
That said you could well be on to something here.
The deal is a bloody good one for NI but DUP have to play to their voters who are probably even madder than the official DUP lol!
I think they'll go for the deal if they're given a bridge. It's the right thing to do. NI, massive bridge connecting it with the mainland, shows commitment to its future presence in the Union.
A bridge to nowhere? Where do you suggest that this bridge go to? Across the North Channel to Stranraer perhaps? Or maybe you favour a link to the southern tip of the Kintyre peninsula?
I contend that you know precisely nothing about civil engineering and even less about economic geography.
It's not fair to come to such a narrow judgement. There are whole swathes of knowledge and understanding that luckyguy1983 lacks, not just engineering and economics. I've seen him display a rich and varied depth of ignorance on a wide range of subjects.
Does no one else find it strange how nuts the DUP have been going this week
Well the DUP are generally quite strange and "enraged" seems to be their default position.
That said you could well be on to something here.
The deal is a bloody good one for NI but DUP have to play to their voters who are probably even madder than the official DUP lol!
I think they'll go for the deal if they're given a bridge. It's the right thing to do. NI, massive bridge connecting it with the mainland, shows commitment to its future presence in the Union.
A bridge to nowhere? Where do you suggest that this bridge go to? Across the North Channel to Stranraer perhaps? Or maybe you favour a link to the southern tip of the Kintyre peninsula?
I contend that you know precisely nothing about civil engineering and even less about economic geography.
I’d like to see bridges to north and south and a motorway linking the two. It would make it quicker to get to Scotland by avoiding the m1 or m6! One could be named after Boris and the other after Corbyn
Yes, and I would like to see a road and cycle bridge to France too. All such bridges are gigantic undertakings and Boris' record on bridge-building is dismal: see Garden Bridge and Thames Gateway Bridge.
No as the only polls putting Yes ahead in Scotland are with No Deal and Boris has a Deal and there is only majority support in Northern Ireland for a united Ireland with a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, Boris has avoided that too while still delivering Brexit.
Boris of course only sent a letter opposing further extension, he just sent a copy of the Benn Act otherwise
You reach for the polls like a comfort blanket. I am looking at your last post. You draw a distinction between GB and NI and accept that the two have diverged. You did not say in your post "The United Kingdom". You specifically echoed the Conservative and Unionist Party terminology as of their recent email, to talk of Great Britain on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other.
That is what should grip your attention as you are a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
And as for the letter, he sent a letter asking for an extension and the EU is considering it. He might also have sent a box of Milk Tray for all I know but he sent the letter you said he wouldn't send.
Since the GFA there has been no hard border with the Republic of Ireland as there used to be, of course we could build one again and send the troops back into Northern Ireland but that would just see a resurgent IRA and Catholics press harder for Irish unity.
The Boris Deal is a compromise that avoids that while still delivering Brexit and keeping Northern Ireland in the UK customs area and enabling Northern Ireland to benefit from UK negotiated trade deals.
Boris did not send a letter asking for extension, he sent a copy of the Benn Act only and a letter opposing further extension
"Dear Mr President
The UK parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s government to seek an extension of the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty, currently due to expire at 11pm GMT on 31 October 2019, until 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020.
I am writing therefore to inform the European council that the United Kingdom is seeking a further extension to the period provided under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union, including as applied by article 106a of the Euratom treaty. The United Kingdom proposes that this period should end at 11pm GMT on 31 January 2020. If the parties are able to ratify before this date, the government proposes that the period should be terminated early.
Yours sincerely,
Prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"
I'll express what I imagine is a view held by a tiny fraction of the population.
The single least worst outcome from this point would be for Brexit to take effect, but modified significantly from the terms that Boris Johnson has negotiated. To this point is that the winners have sought to impose Magdeburg justice on the losers. For Brexit to have any chance of moving forward, the winners must also be seen to have been thwarted in meaningful ways. Brexit must not feel like the property of any single group.
A customs union would not be such a bad way of achieving that.
No, they haven't. They've come up with a deal that works. That's not the same as slaughtering 20,000 innocents.
I think you need your moral compass adjusting.
They’ve come up with a deal that on the government’s own figures will cause massive economic damage in order to grind Remainers into the dust.
projections of slightly less growth based on, for example, no free trade agreements with third parties
And no, it's not "in order to grind Remainers into the dust".
It's because it's what they believe is right for the country
Comments
OK, the Eliot one looks out of context - that's lazy from huffpost.
The others are exact quotes though. Nothing remotely misleading about them.
The medium post is also meaningless wrt Switzerland - quibbling about EEA vs non-EEA access to the single market? That's a difference of fractions, and utterly meaningless.
"the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown"
Whether a conditional approval, subject to a condition that is later met, would be sufficient is a matter for the lawyers. But so long as there's doubt about the passage of the WAIB I don't really see the point of the meaningful vote in itself. Unless a conditional approval would help with the timetable for ratification by the European Parliament.
I hate to go all anecdotal again but I do think there has been a definite shift in mood since the deal was agreed. A lot of people I have spoken to, who I would say range from being casually interested in politics through to not really following the going’s-on, have expressed to me varying degrees of frustration and a desire to just get on and do it. Many of those I’ve spoken to think it was a mistake to vote to leave.
This isnt a ramping post, but just speaking as I find.
Whether the public remembers something or not says nothing about whether Leavers campaigned on something or not.
Isn't the problem that the PM has an option and parliament does not. They can't just keep saying 'non'.
By and large Xenophobia is a term used by people who show reluctance to allow debate on immigration. It is not xenophobic to discuss immigration. Gordon Brown hold the political prize for Xenophobia with British Jobs for British Gulags, or was it workers?
It is a great comfort blanket but meaningless rhetoric to shout Xenophobia Bus and Death Cult at any and every opportunity.
Jobs, Pay, Services, Housing and such issues were relevant, no doubt some link with xenophobic ideals could be made. Just depends on the cart and egg, or do I mean chicken and horse?
If you're going to continue to share discredited lies watch this first. From 4 minutes on fuller quotations are shown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzmCHcM7cA
"Well, if we'd left we'd 'ave all that money by now.... What are them bloody MPs playin' at?"
The Bozo guff that NI is still within the UK customs territory is yet another lie .
I expect all out war from the DUP now , they are going to do whatever it takes to kill this deal.
The £350m per week would have had far less impact if the remainiacs hadn't squealed and bitched about how it was only £250m per week. Again it was the squealing and bitching that got the news coverage.
Well done to all the squealers and bitchers.
And, no, it is not X or R to have concerns about immigration. However, if someone has immigration as their numero uno political issue, and talks about it way more than they do any other issue, it is highly probable that such a person is X and/or R.
Do people honestly think that’s not going to contain some controversial detail . This is why they’re trying to get the MV passed so that they can withdraw the extension before MPs see the WAIB.
He's trying to be deliberately misleading, that you can have full access without being inside the single market. Labour had the same thing as part of their official policy very recently.
I think you need your moral compass adjusting.
There are times when a reputation for revenge are important, but this isn't one of them. If they bring down the government then Corbyn gets in. That's worse.
Given that the EU and Parliament won't allow that option there is no deal that they look likely to accept.
“There is absolutely a very clear option for us to play a major role in the single market and be very significant members of the EEA without participating in the political and judicial arrangements of the EU.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11625919/Owen-Paterson-leaving-European-Union-could-increase-prosperity-and-boost-jobs.html
This wasn't an uncommon position for leavers back then - that we should leave the EU but remain in EFTA.
Once we are out, things will evolve with each passing govt, some more Eurosceptic than others
Or are you saying that how political messages are understood makes them true. Conservatives banged on about the deficit coming down, but most people understood that as debt and therefore the conservatives had a mandate to bring the debt down!
All we have had for 3 1/2 years is the losing campaign plotting to over turn the result. They may use flowery language to impress each other, and feel clever at finding ways of stopping their defeat meaning anything, but that's all it is.
Anyway, the upshot of a VONC would probably be a general election which might well result in a completely different kind of Brexit, or even none at all.
Boris Johnson = Duke of Wellington
Angela Merkel = Blucher
(Glaring historical inaccuracy added to lend verisimilitude as Brexit propaganda)
Seems to me this is really the last chance saloon for both sides - whoever wins this week takes the prize.
"You seem to think that it matters what the BBC says but news coverage doesn't matter, it doesn't change a single person's mind. In fact we could and should shut down all the newspapers in the country and it wouldn't change a thing."
https://xkcd.com/386/
The Hannan quote
The author states that Hannan did not mean "threatening our membership in the Single Market" when he said "threatening our place in the Single Market", and made that clear later on in the interview. Fair enough, but it's very badly phrased and the listener could be forgiven for thinking Hannan meant what he actually said.
The Paterson quote
The author states that Paterson meant “Only a madman would actually stop trading with the market” when he said “Only a madman would actually leave the market”, and points out that he later said that we would “carry on trading with the market”. This is more badly phrased than Hannan's and would lead the listener to believe that he meant two contradictory things simultaneously
The Farage quote
The author states that since Switzerland is not in the Single Market, his statement that “Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland?" cannot be taken as a statement that we should not leave it. Fair enough.
The Elliott quote
The author states that when Matthew Elliot said “The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally (sic) attractive for some business people”, he was outlining the beliefs of those people, not speaking of his own position nor advocating it. Fair enough, but the quote as it stands is exactly true: If I say "Dogs like bones", I am not advocating that I like bones or that you should eat bones, I am telling you that dogs like bones. Matthew said what he said and meant what he said.
The Banks quote
the author agrees that Arron Banks said “Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK”, but points out that Banks was not part of the official Leave campaign (he was Leave.EU, not Vote Leave). OK, but again Arron said what he said and meant what he said.
So of the five quotes, Hannan and Paterson's were bad phrasing on their part and Elliott and Banks's were quoted correctly. He's right about Farage tho.
(Parenthetically, both Farage and Banks say what they mean and mean what they say and don't usually indulge in sophistry. Annoying, yes, worrying, yes, but unclear or dishonest? Not often. If Farage hadn't turned into a CPAC groupie he'd deserve a place in the Lords)
I’d like to see bridges to north and south and a motorway linking the two. It would make it quicker to get to Scotland by avoiding the m1 or m6! One could be named after Boris and the other after Corbyn
And that’s without pointing out that we haven’t yet negotiated a deal, and the likely end state (should we leave at all) will be a closely aligned EEA type arrangement.
However, no objective or rational person would support the U.K. being in a CU with the European Union. Ask Norway - it’s just a silly idea. But you know that really. If anything, I feel sorry for you having to pretend you agree with this nonsense.
"This is where UKIP is wrong. Desperate to control immigration from the EU, the party has rejected continued membership of the single market within the EEA – which would place our economy at risk"
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/01/owen-paterson-mp-why-ukip-is-wrong-about-immigration.html
"We need, therefore, to pick a proven, off-the-shelf plan. However, our participation in the Single Market is fundamental to protecting the UK’s economic position. This brings us to the only realistic option, which is to stay within the EEA agreement. The EEA is tailor made for this purpose and can be adopted by joining EFTA first"
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/is-owen-paterson-hoping-to-become-leader-of-the-out-camp-in-the-2017-referendum/
And no, it's not "in order to grind Remainers into the dust".
It's because it's what they believe is right for the country