This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Yep sorry. The three countries that moved from EFTA to the EU were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They originally became members of the EEA as members of EFTA but then moved top the EU whilst remaining members of EFTA.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
It is astonishing, on the basis of this vote the parliamentary Labour Party is more split on Brexit than the parliamentary Tory Party and in the Leave direction!!
I think dinner this evening with mrs lee could be a bit tricky...how was your day darling...well I took a £30k + perks pay cut...why did you do that...matter of principle...and how have you used this new found freedom...I abstained....
To be fair has his resignation not succeeded?
Arguably if he'd not announced he was rebelling then the government might not have felt under sufficient pressure to make today's concessions.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
More Labour rebels voted with the government, 5 plus Hopkins, than the 2 Tory rebels who voted against the government in the government's victory on the first Lords amendment proposing Parliament be given the final say on Brexit if it votes any EU deal down https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035
Ken Clarke is hereby confirmed as the real headbanger and troublecauser in the Major government.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
(From a technical perspective, there are often carve outs in multinational treaties that deal with specific circumstances for particular countries or groups. IIRC, the EEA treaty contains specific exemptions regarding Lapland. So, while it might be highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that the EEA treaty could be amended and contain specific provisions for us with regard to the customs union. )
Specific exemptions regarding Lapland
Santa Clause
OK, I checked the agreement, it was actually the Åland Islands and not Lapland.
Sorry.
As with the Liechtenstein Option that seems to be so popular with those hoping to continue the limits on migration inside the EEA, it strikes me that the idea an exemption designed for a couple of very tiny territories cannot really be expected to be applicable to a country of 65 million people. If we are in the EEA then I cannot see anyway to avoid the four freedoms.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Yep sorry. The three countries that moved from EFTA to the EU were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They originally became members of the EEA as members of EFTA but then moved top the EU whilst remaining members of EFTA.
They are not members of EFTA.
It's hardly surprising that they were able to move smoothly from the EEA to the EEC/EU, because the prospect of such a transition was the main reason for setting up the EEA in the first place.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
I thought convention was to leave bills unchanged, but allow them to continue for further deliberation. At third reading they’d vote for the status quo (I.e. against passing it into law).
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
The net effect is to make a hard Brexit more likely, since the UK's negotiating position, already weak, has been made even weaker.
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Yep sorry. The three countries that moved from EFTA to the EU were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They originally became members of the EEA as members of EFTA but then moved top the EU whilst remaining members of EFTA.
Of those, I wouldn't be surprised to see Austria leave, and I would expect Sweden would prefer a looser arrangement, Associate Membership, type agreement.
Looks like we will get EEA which will solve all kinds of problems, just about unite the country (not to say PB), avoid any issues in Ireland (where the compromise of EEA is far better and likelier than any kind of border fudge) and we can then move on.
Poorer, obvs, but free of much of the laws of the EU so many Leavers will be happy as they don't seem overly worried about the well being of their fellow Leavers for whom a vote to Leave was one to make themselves better off but hey, no biggie.
Just as long as no one mentions immigration.
Unfortunately it wont solve the Irish border as EEA precludes a customs union.
Only technically speaking. If the EU says it’s happy for us to have SM and CU with four freedoms the EEA aren’t going to block it.
Yes they are. We cannot be part of the EEA and in the Customs Union.
We can if the EEA treaty is amended, which it would have to be anyway.
No because that then has to apply to all the EEA EFTA members.
(From a technical perspective, there are often carve outs in multinational treaties that deal with specific circumstances for particular countries or groups. IIRC, the EEA treaty contains specific exemptions regarding Lapland. So, while it might be highly unlikely, it is theoretically possible that the EEA treaty could be amended and contain specific provisions for us with regard to the customs union. )
Specific exemptions regarding Lapland
Santa Clause
OK, I checked the agreement, it was actually the Åland Islands and not Lapland.
Sorry.
As with the Liechtenstein Option that seems to be so popular with those hoping to continue the limits on migration inside the EEA, it strikes me that the idea an exemption designed for a couple of very tiny territories cannot really be expected to be applicable to a country of 65 million people. If we are in the EEA then I cannot see anyway to avoid the four freedoms.
I don't disagree, I was making a silly technical point.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
The net effect is to make a hard Brexit more likely, since the UK's negotiating position, already weak, has been made even weaker.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
This is one of the weird things - the whole debate in the UK, including most of the Lords amendments, assumes we can pick any option we like, whether or not the EU wants to play ball. In the case of the EEA it's not even just the EU - it's all the EFTA countries as well (even including Switzerland, because the EFTA treaties would have to be revised).
Aren't we already in the EEA?
Quiet, you'll set Richard Tyndall off again.
(The short answer is No. The slightly longer answer is that we are signatories to the EEA treaty as EU members. The EEA treaty is a treaty between the EU states and the three EFTA states excluding Switzerland, and leaving the EU wouldn't automatically transfer us to the other side of the treaty.)
No we are signatories to the EEA agreement in our own right. The EU is also a separate signatory.
When Portugal moved from EFTA to the EU they remained members of the EEA and there was no njew treaty.
I thought Portugal joined the EU in 1986, which was before the EEA even existed.
Yep sorry. The three countries that moved from EFTA to the EU were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They originally became members of the EEA as members of EFTA but then moved top the EU whilst remaining members of EFTA.
They are not members of EFTA.
It's hardly surprising that they were able to move smoothly from the EEA to the EEC/EU, because the prospect of such a transition was the main reason for setting up the EEA in the first place.
They were members of EFTA.
They signed the EEA agreement as members of EFTA in 1992 They then moved from EFTA to the EU (or the EC) in 1995. They remained members of the EEA throughout.
It is right there in the EEA Agreement. All they did is strike out the names of the three countries as members of EFTA.
More Labour rebels voted with the government, 5 plus Hopkins, than the 2 Tory rebels who voted against the government in the government's victory on the first Lords amendment proposing Parliament be given the final say on Brexit if it votes any EU deal down https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44456035
Ken Clarke is hereby confirmed as the real headbanger and troublecauser in the Major government.
Plus the biggest block to Major ruling out the single currency
Yep sorry. The three countries that moved from EFTA to the EU were Austria, Finland and Sweden. They originally became members of the EEA as members of EFTA but then moved top the EU whilst remaining members of EFTA.
Of those, I wouldn't be surprised to see Austria leave, and I would expect Sweden would prefer a looser arrangement, Associate Membership, type agreement.
"Looser" is a word that's easy to bandy around but hard to define in practice.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
Though it wasn't Brexit which caused that but her own failings on campaign and the dementia tax, WFA etc.
Plus the shite left behind by Osborne on tuition fees and unaffordable housing.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
The net effect is to make a hard Brexit more likely, since the UK's negotiating position, already weak, has been made even weaker.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
The net effect is to make a hard Brexit more likely, since the UK's negotiating position, already weak, has been made even weaker.
Surely the best thing that the MPs could do to help themselves at this point is introduce a Private Members Bill stripping the Executive of the Royal Prerogative over negotiating treaties. That would give them the firm right to take over the negotiations as they saw fit. Or is that not possible?
The spectacle of Remoaners cheering on those individuals who wish to frustrate the democratic will of the People as expressed in the 2016 referendum on the spurious grounds that they know better than the People what is good for them is not an appetising one.
The House of Lords has attempted to frustrate the referendum result to leave the EU -not just in name but in reality. The Tory rebels are doing the same. If concessions have been made, its been the People that has had to make concessions, not Theresa May. Its democracy itself which has had to make concessions.
Brexit nevertheless marches relentlessly on. Remoaners wont stop it. But in the end if eventually they succeed in watering it down so that we are still under EU control, then a future generation will have to deal with that so that we leave properly and completely.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Good summary, thanks.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
The net effect is to make a hard Brexit more likely, since the UK's negotiating position, already weak, has been made even weaker.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
How would the DUP have voted if they were outside the govt on this amendment though ?
On topic, with the Commons maths and state of negotiations being as they are we won’t get EEA but probably a similar looking bespoke deal.
The question is: to what degree?
That’ll be the detail of the negotiation (behind the scenes) and Parliament won’t see much of it because much will be technocratic rather than sweeping statements on the single market or customs union.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
Britain basically needs to pick a framework and then work out what reforms are needed within the UK to make that framework work for us. Whether it's full membership all the way down to WTO reconfiguration of the economy. It's not the EU's job to facilitate our need to feel special.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
How would the DUP have voted if they were outside the govt on this amendment though ?
If the DUP weren't part of the government they'd still need to play the Brexitier than thou card to avoid the risk of being sold out in the negotiations by the Tory party.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
That's because they are making same classic mistake that the Brexiteers frequently make. There is no option for parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to specify a 'soft' Brexit'. It's a negotiation, the outcome of which depends on what the EU are prepared to sign up to, which in turn depends mainly on internal EU politics. The only thing within our power is to trade concessions in a negotiation. If parliament decides they don't like the result, the EU are not going to offer anything more - why should they? It's not even obvious that there's any mechanism for the EU to do so, in the timescale available.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Utter rubbish. Parliament will still almost certainly vote down the EEA and the Customs Union amendments, especially as more Labour rebels voted with the government on giving Parliament the final say on Brexit than Tory rebels voted against the government
The spectacle of Remoaners cheering on those individuals who wish to frustrate the democratic will of the People as expressed in the 2016 referendum on the spurious grounds that they know better than the People what is good for them is not an appetising one.
The House of Lords has attempted to frustrate the referendum result to leave the EU -not just in name but in reality. The Tory rebels are doing the same. If concessions have been made, its been the People that has had to make concessions, not Theresa May. Its democracy itself which has had to make concessions.
Brexit nevertheless marches relentlessly on. Remoaners wont stop it. But in the end if eventually they succeed in watering it down so that we are still under EU control, then a future generation will have to deal with that so that we leave properly and completely.
Why is it necessarily spurious that the rebels know better than “The People” (innit)?
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
If you are right re Theresa (which I doubt tbh, given her tenacity), would she have been better not to offer the concession, whatever it is, and lose amendment 19?
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA/EFTA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
That's because they are making same classic mistake that the Brexiteers frequently make. There is no option for parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to specify a 'soft' Brexit'. It's a negotiation, the outcome of which depends on what the EU are prepared to sign up to, which in turn depends mainly on internal EU politics. The only thing within our power is to trade concessions in a negotiation. If parliament decides they don't like the result, the EU are not going to offer anything more - why should they? It's not even obvious that there's any mechanism for the EU to do so, in the timescale available.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
A bad deal rather than no deal? What does a bad deal look like to you?
As a point of order on "no deal" being dead - isn't that the default outcome if negotiation doesn't lead to a deal accepted by the commission or the other 27?
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Do the EU really see FOM as an obligation? EU figures usually speak of it as being a perk
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
If you are right re Theresa (which I doubt tbh, given her tenacity), would she have been better not to offer the concession, whatever it is, and lose amendment 19?
Well the rebels shouldn't have forced the concession. Theresa May (and Olly Robbins) was/is giving Remainers everything they want and has be all the way along - They should've just quietly let her get on with selling Brexit down the river until we reach October and it's too late for anyone to do anything.
At this point Brexiteers have still got time to pull the plug.
FOM isn't an absolute freedom. We declare our "victory" in winning concessions then simply adopt the powers always available to us to deport workless foreigners
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
But even amongst those who want to stay in there is no love or even respect for the EU. Look at years of Eurobarometer data. We basically dislike the EU but some think we still need to stay in it.
If you or the EU think that those 48% actually like or respect them they are sorely mistaken.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
That's because they are making same classic mistake that the Brexiteers frequently make. There is no option for parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to specify a 'soft' Brexit'. It's a negotiation, the outcome of which depends on what the EU are prepared to sign up to, which in turn depends mainly on internal EU politics. The only thing within our power is to trade concessions in a negotiation. If parliament decides they don't like the result, the EU are not going to offer anything more - why should they? It's not even obvious that there's any mechanism for the EU to do so, in the timescale available.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
A bad deal rather than no deal? What does a bad deal look like to you?
There are lots of bad deals! The most likely is one where we get zilch on services, can't in practice negotiate trade deals with other countries, lose the trade deals we currently have by virtue of our EU membership, are subject to most EU rules, have no say in the rules, and end up up paying megabucks anyway. I think that's where parliament is taking us.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Do the EU really see FOM as an obligation? EU figures usually speak of it as being a perk
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Do the EU really see FOM as an obligation? EU figures usually speak of it as being a perk
It is one of the fundamental four freedoms that underpins the Single Market and is a basic principle of the EU. I cannot see them shifting on that at all.
"I think the chances of a deal being done are so much higher now."
You could be right. It will concentrate the minds of the negotiators. The alternative is several years of uncertainty which no one wants.
I think it is a very clever move, the EU will be desperate for a deal now, they will not want the alternative.
Will they? Parliament is full to the brim with the worst kind of remainer, the longer they drag it out the more chance that Parliament will take any kind of shite deal. The EU just got a huge win, our MPs are working to strengthen the hand of our enemy. It's absolutely disgraceful.
A general election in November might solve a lot of problems
Why would that be? There's absolutely no guarantee it would return anything other than a confused hung parliament.
Just read a link to Guido that someone posted down thread. Reading the comments under the article I didn't realise there were so many UKIPers in the country let alone that all of them posted on Guido. They're also 100% Trump supporters. He's collected all the nutters in one place. Well done Guido.
Brexit Bulldog and out......
Guido's actually publicly announced several times not liking his own comments section
We have tried out the latest expensive AI software and it is not good enough or not trained enough yet on British idiom to deal with obsesssive racists who bore on about Sadiq Khan, David Lammy and Diane Abbott endlessly. Twats who think they are being witty when they are just crass, saddos who game the moderation to insult “musl1ms”. We frankly don’t want them, like them or need them. Breitbart are welcome to them.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
But even amongst those who want to stay in there is no love or even respect for the EU. Look at years of Eurobarometer data. We basically dislike the EU but some think we still need to stay in it.
If you or the EU think that those 48% actually like or respect them they are sorely mistaken.
If you conducted polls asking people if they like or respect Westminster what do you think the result would be? It's completely irrelevant, and as @FF43 has pointed out, Brexit makes no sense even if you hate the EU and would rather have nothing to do with it.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
FOM isn't an absolute freedom. We declare our "victory" in winning concessions then simply adopt the powers always available to us to deport workless foreigners
It was not just workless foreigners that drove the Leave vote but in work low skilled foreign workers undercutting the low paid by willing to work at or below the minimum wage.
To be fair to the EU they did offer the UK transition controls when the new accession countries joined the EU in 2004 to address this but Blair in the most idiotic decision of his premiership refused to take them
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as a last resort the HoC could get rid of the current cabinet and vote confidence in another one which would then do the negotiation. Unlikely, I know but we live in strange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
HYFUD and I are agreed - that's a first!
HYFUD has been wrong on this point before, since he insists that 'The Commons' sentenced Charles I when it was a militarily purged body which did so. In fact a militarily purged body which was only 3/4 of the Commons in the first place.
It would be like arguing if Trump had soldiers eject all his opponents from Congress, then those that remained named him Emperor Trump the Magnificent, that 'the Congress' decided it as though what remained was the legal, whole body.
The primary of parliament was confirmed by the Civil War, though it took awhile longer before it became properly codified of course as is our way, but nor are the actions of elements of the Commons during that time able to be treated as direct precedents. It was a chaotic time, and of course legally there would have been no way to sentence Charles at the time so departures were needed, but it wasn't most of the initial parliamentarian side, let alone 'The Commons' which decided to.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
But even amongst those who want to stay in there is no love or even respect for the EU. Look at years of Eurobarometer data. We basically dislike the EU but some think we still need to stay in it.
If you or the EU think that those 48% actually like or respect them they are sorely mistaken.
If you conducted polls asking people if they like or respect Westminster what do you think the result would be? It's completely irrelevant, and as @FF43 has pointed out, Brexit makes no sense even if you hate the EU and would rather have nothing to do with it.
Of course It makes sense. I know that you Eurofanatics can't see it but that is your failing alone. This is why in the end you will fail. You simply don't understand the mindset of... well anyone as far as I can see. Leave and Remain supporters. They are a closed book to you because when they speak you only hear the words you want to hear. Some love the EU and all it stands for, some hate it. But the idea that all those who voted Remain (to get back to the original point) do so because they like the EU is simply not true - at least according to the EU's own polling.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
But even amongst those who want to stay in there is no love or even respect for the EU. Look at years of Eurobarometer data. We basically dislike the EU but some think we still need to stay in it.
If you or the EU think that those 48% actually like or respect them they are sorely mistaken.
If you conducted polls asking people if they like or respect Westminster what do you think the result would be? It's completely irrelevant, and as @FF43 has pointed out, Brexit makes no sense even if you hate the EU and would rather have nothing to do with it.
Of course It makes sense. I know that you Eurofanatics can't see it but that is your failing alone. This is why in the end you will fail. You simply don't understand the mindset of... well anyone as far as I can see. Leave and Remain supporters. They are a closed book to you because when they speak you only hear the words you want to hear. Some love the EU and all it stands for, some hate it. But the idea that all those who voted Remain (to get back to the original point) do so because they like the EU is simply not true - at least according to the EU's own polling.
Does being a patriotic Brit mean you have to like Westminster? What you fanatics can't see is that you don't have to like a political institution in order to accept it and judge that the alternatives are more unpalatable.
When I first came to consider Britain's place in the EU before the 2016 Referendum, I started from a position of frustrated acceptance but, after listening to some arguments on here and doing some reading and research, I cam to close that whatever its original noble intentions, the EU had become something else, fundamentally illiberal and more interested in the economic prosperity of the few than the overall economic and social fabric of Europe.
I hoped we could rejoin EFTA after leaving the EU and re-invigorate that organisation as a de counterweight to the EU, a loose association of free trading nations working together where appropriate but each continuing to affirm a strong national identity. To that end, we would offer (perhaps) to accommodate the EFTA HQ in London and develop relations between EFTA and non-European trading blocs.
I recognised we would need our own bilateral deal with the EU analogous to but not the same as the one the Swiss obtained where our issues with Freedom of Movement were recognised but where our desire to enjoy a tariff-free and harmonious economic relationship with the EU was recognised.
Inside the EEA (perhaps) but outside the SM and the CU with perhaps a new UK Customs Territory allowing Ulster (perhaps) different border arrangements might be a way forward but as I said a couple of nights ago, we are now running out of both can and road and it may be the Prime Minister might have to sacrifice the unity of the Conservative Party for the greater economic interests of the country - perhaps this has always been where Bruges, Maastricht, Lisbon and other developments have been taking the Tories.
So Labour and Tory Europhiles have colluded to truly kneecap the UK's negotiating hand. Their loyalty is well and truly to Brussels over Britain. I would recommend for all people who believe in democracy to join the Conservative party to ensure May's successor is someone that will complete Brexit.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Do the EU really see FOM as an obligation? EU figures usually speak of it as being a perk
If they viewed it as a perk they wouldn't mind it if the UK opted out of it. Unfortunately, they view it and the free movement of goods as indivisible.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as ange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
HYFUD and I are agreed - that's a first!
HYFUD has been wrong on this point before, since he insists that 'The Commons' sentenced Charles I when it was a militarily purged body which did so. In fact a militarily purged body which was only 3/4 of the Commons in the first place.
It would be like arguing if Trump had soldiers eject all his opponents from Congress, then those that remained named him Emperor Trump the Magnificent, that 'the Congress' decided it as though what remained was the legal, whole body.
The primary of parliament was confirmed by the Civil War, though it took awhile longer before it became properly codified of course as is our way, but nor are the actions of elements of the Commons during that time able to be treated as direct precedents. It was a chaotic time, and of course legally there would have been no way to sentence Charles at the time so departures were needed, but it wasn't most of the initial parliamentarian side, let alone 'The Commons' which decided to.
Even had the Commons not voted to execute Charles 1st, which it did regardless of the reason for its composition at the time, the victory of the Parliamentarian side in the Civil War ensured for evermore that it was Parliament which was the ultimate supreme holder of power under our constitution not the monarch and their appointed ministers and advisers under the Divine Right of Kings as asserted by Charles 1st. The Bill of Rights in 1689 just codified that principle
So Labour and Tory Europhiles have colluded to truly kneecap the UK's negotiating hand. Their loyalty is well and truly to Brussels over Britain. I would recommend for all people who believe in democracy to join the Conservative party to ensure May's successor is someone that will complete Brexit.
Inside the EEA (perhaps) but outside the SM and the CU with perhaps a new UK Customs Territory allowing Ulster (perhaps) different border arrangements might be a way forward but as I said a couple of nights ago, we are now running out of both can and road and it may be the Prime Minister might have to sacrifice the unity of the Conservative Party for the greater economic interests of the country - perhaps this has always been where Bruges, Maastricht, Lisbon and other developments have been taking the Tories.
If that's the way forwards, it's no surprise we're going nowhere. Your suggestion just piles mutually contradictory positions onto face-saving semantic inventions.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
What choice did she have? Had she refused the concession the rebellion would have defeated the government.
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
Parliament can't negotiate a treaty - practically, constitutionally, it is impossible. They don't have the powers or the means. Means that Govt. are assured of a deal by November.
I don't think you are right there. The house can resolve itself into a committee and do just about anything.
As it stands the House does not have the power to negotiate treaties.
Doesn't the House have the power to mandate a committee (i.e. the Cabinet) to negotiate treaties?
The cabinet is not a parliamentary committee.
No, I get that. But it is in effect a committee. My point was that as ange times.
The HoC cannot get rid of the Cabinet. The Cabinet is formed by the PM.
The HofC could abolish the PM and the Cabinet if it wishes as Parliament is sovereign and that is the basis of our unwritten constitution as Charles 1st found out
HYFUD and I are agreed - that's a first!
HYFUD has been wrongecided to.
Even had the Commons not voted to execute Charles 1st, which it did regardless of the reason for its composition at the time, the victory of the Parliamentarian side in the Civil War ensured for evermore that it was Parliament which was the ultimate supreme holder of power under our constitution not the monarch and their appointed ministers and advisers under the Divine Right of Kings as asserted by Charles 1st
The victory did ensure that, I certainly didn't dispute that, I just think the distinction between the Long Parliament and the Rump Parliament is important. People already get the wrong ideas of the Civil War as it is without skipping a rather important contextual point about the period. King vs Parliament is useful as a summation, but it was more complicated.
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
I agree the GE2017 has directly led to now.
But, I think it was her poor leadership and campaigning skills, together with a dire manifesto, that sunk her chances of a good majority.
I don’t think her Brexit position was decisive. It would have led to europhile/centre-left rallying around Corbyn regardless, to try frustrate it, but that wouldn’t have been enough on its own to cost her a majority.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
What choice did she have? Had she refused the concession the rebellion would have defeated the government.
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
If that's the way forwards, it's no surprise we're going nowhere. Your suggestion just piles mutually contradictory positions onto face-saving semantic inventions.
How so ? The Swiss remain within EFTA, outside the Customs Union and Single Market and operate their own Customs Territory with Lichtenstein.
There's no reason why the United Kingdom couldn't have a bilateral agreement with the EU from within EFTA which respects our position on Freedom of Movement for example. The quid pro quo of that might be the recognition of Ulster as having Special Member Status just as the Channel Islands currently enjoy within the EU.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
What choice did she have? Had she refused the concession the rebellion would have defeated the government.
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
Until the EEA amendment vote
? That was never on the table as a viable victory today. It might be in future, but a lot of things have to happen to make it so.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
The EU is viewed in many different ways in Britain, with a sizeable minority wanting to stay in. The country is not all of one heart, with one unified view.
No-one said it was. But, when a majority of the electorate - in a longstanding member of over four decades - votes to leave your organisation wholesale, you’ve got a problem and if I were the EU I’d be very interested in finding out what is was rather than falling back on stereotypes, platitudes, fingers-in-ears and “the dog ate my homework” type excuses.
The problem is they're not. They view Brexit as a very peculiar British disease caused by Britain's Europhobic media. They refuse to accept there could be anything wrong.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
What choice did she have? Had she refused the concession the rebellion would have defeated the government.
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
Until the EEA amendment vote
? That was never on the table as a viable victory today. It might be in future, but a lot of things have to happen to make it so.
That is the ultimate prize for both Tory and Labour diehard Remainers, anything less than that remains a defeat for their cause whatever other concessions are made
If that's the way forwards, it's no surprise we're going nowhere. Your suggestion just piles mutually contradictory positions onto face-saving semantic inventions.
How so ? The Swiss remain within EFTA, outside the Customs Union and Single Market and operate their own Customs Territory with Lichtenstein.
There's no reason why the United Kingdom couldn't have a bilateral agreement with the EU from within EFTA which respects our position on Freedom of Movement for example. The quid pro quo of that might be the recognition of Ulster as having Special Member Status just as the Channel Islands currently enjoy within the EU.
Maybe it was a typo but you said "inside the EEA but outside the single market" which is close to being a contradiction in terms. Northern Ireland could have special status as part of the EU's customs territory, but that brings us back to the problem of an Irish sea border.
Not many commentators agreeing with you on that one Richard...
That's because they are making same classic mistake that the Brexiteers frequently make. There is no option for parliament, or anyone else for that matter, to specify a 'soft' Brexit'. It's a negotiation, the outcome of which depends on what the EU are prepared to sign up to, which in turn depends mainly on internal EU politics. The only thing within our power is to trade concessions in a negotiation. If parliament decides they don't like the result, the EU are not going to offer anything more - why should they? It's not even obvious that there's any mechanism for the EU to do so, in the timescale available.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
The EU want a deal that keeps the UK as close as possible to their orbit whilst losing as much formal influence as possible whilst ensuring it can pass the UK and EU political processes and be politically sustainable.
I suspect a deal will be around us losing formal influence (i.e. votes) but having quite a bit of informal influence on areas of alignment, and a joint UK-EU adjucator on areas of divergence.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
Gone in the next few days is an impressively bold prediction worthy of serious bragging rights if you are correct!
What choice did she have? Had she refused the concession the rebellion would have defeated the government.
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
Until the EEA amendment vote
? That was never on the table as a viable victory today. It might be in future, but a lot of things have to happen to make it so.
That is the ultimate prize for both Tory and Labour diehard Remainers, anything less than that remains a defeat for their cause whatever other concessions are made
It was never a viable victory today, as I and several others forecast days ago, and you ought to know full well.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA/EFTA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
Aren’t you stuck in an EU or nothing (nothing, plus the total dissolution of Britain) mindset?
Make's me wonder whether TMay could have seen off the rebellion without concessions?
She couldn’t.
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
Nope she did that all on her own when she went to the country three years early on a hard Brexit manifesto and lost Cameron's majority.
How would the DUP have voted if they were outside the govt on this amendment though ?
If the DUP weren't part of the government they'd still need to play the Brexitier than thou card to avoid the risk of being sold out in the negotiations by the Tory party.
Is there any understanding in the EU of how the EU is viewed in Britain?
Is there any understanding in Britain of what options are on the table?
To be honest is there any understanding of that point anywhere in Europe either? Both sides are intent on talking past each other as shown by the EU cock up over Northern Ireland.
What cock up? The UK has now been manoeuvred into a position where only staying in the single market plus a customs union looks feasible as a way forwards for Brexit.
Nope. That is the cock up. SM and CU are currently mutually exclusive outside of EU membership and so we are back to the fact that you are not going to persuade the UK public to just say 'forget it'. No matter how much you might want it. The EU have effectively guaranteed they will have to put up a border between North and South or back down.
They are not. You are stuck in an EEA or nothing mindset. There's no reason why the EU couldn't create a mirror framework just for the UK which effectively kept us in transition indefinitely.
I think that would be easier than shoehorning us into the EU, but there's a big snag from the EU's point of view - one outcome they definitely don't want is the UK having full access to the Single Market without what they see as the reciprocal obligations, most notably FoM and a big annual bill. I suspect that's what behind their recent reverse ferret on the 'backstop' applying to the whole of the UK: if it did, we'd be able to cherry-pick indefinitely without paying the bills.
Do the EU really see FOM as an obligation? EU figures usually speak of it as being a perk
True, but it's a compulsory perk!
It’s a great perk if you are an Eastern European member state or in Club Med.
Comments
Bloody hell, first I agree with @HYUFD and now with @Philip_Thompson! Whatever next?
Government majority of 26 on the vote; that means 13 rebels would result in a loss (Bercow would support an amendment). Apparently May had 15-20 rebels in her office beforehand, and once Lewisham East has an MP the government will have to find one more supporter to win votes.
The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand.
"The Tory rebels have broken May’s negotiating hand."
She really wasn't making much of a fist of it anyway was she?
If the end result is a soft-brexit, that surely better reflects the 52/48 referendum split than a hard Brexit. The Government need to start expounding that view.
It's hardly surprising that they were able to move smoothly from the EEA to the EEC/EU, because the prospect of such a transition was the main reason for setting up the EEA in the first place.
https://twitter.com/JamesERothwell/status/1006578429225992192
https://twitter.com/adampayne26/status/1006577287146475520
They signed the EEA agreement as members of EFTA in 1992
They then moved from EFTA to the EU (or the EC) in 1995.
They remained members of the EEA throughout.
It is right there in the EEA Agreement. All they did is strike out the names of the three countries as members of EFTA.
http://www.efta.int/media/documents/legal-texts/eea/the-eea-agreement/Main Text of the Agreement/EEAagreement.pdf
As Private Eye reports the Rev. William Macrea has become Lord Macrea at the request of the DUP.
30 years ago, Macrea urged Thatcher to launch missile attacks on Dundalk, Drogheda, etc in the RoI, i.e. to attack a foreign state.
How is this man fit to hold high office and who approved the appointment; does it go as high as the PM?
Plus the shite left behind by Osborne on tuition fees and unaffordable housing.
https://twitter.com/WikiGuido/status/1006589316401950721
The House of Lords has attempted to frustrate the referendum result to leave the EU -not just in name but in reality. The Tory rebels are doing the same. If concessions have been made, its been the People that has had to make concessions, not Theresa May. Its democracy itself which has had to make concessions.
Brexit nevertheless marches relentlessly on. Remoaners wont stop it. But in the end if eventually they succeed in watering it down so that we are still under EU control, then a future generation will have to deal with that so that we leave properly and completely.
Assistant refs to keep flag down for tight offside calls
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44459554
But yes although we disagree on a lot of the detail he does have a very good eye for what developments actually mean rather than the spin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o72XWmuQjoY
The question is: to what degree?
That’ll be the detail of the negotiation (behind the scenes) and Parliament won’t see much of it because much will be technocratic rather than sweeping statements on the single market or customs union.
The rest is just what will fly politically.
There seems to be an assumption on here and in the media more widely that it is only the Remainer rebels who are calling the shots now... Almost as though Brexiteers and Leavers don't matter (even though Leave actually, you know, WON the referendum in the first place)
I think Theresa has signed her political death warrant today and she'll be gone in the next few days.
To make it even worse, the EU will know that the UK government can't guarantee that it can deliver on any concessions. So they will be even more reluctant to take anything we offer on trust.
It's pretty much the worst possible way for the UK to do the negotiations, with the government hamstrung on all sides between the ERG, a cynical opposition, the DUP, the SNP and sundry continuity Remainers.
Still, that's what voters voted for. If they'd wanted a good deal they should have given Theresa May the mandate she asked for. As it is we'll get a bad deal, and therefore the risk of it all collapsing in chaos is increased. The only saving grace is that the EU don't want that either.
At this point Brexiteers have still got time to pull the plug.
If you or the EU think that those 48% actually like or respect them they are sorely mistaken.
https://order-order.com/youvebeenbanned/
We have tried out the latest expensive AI software and it is not good enough or not trained enough yet on British idiom to deal with obsesssive racists who bore on about Sadiq Khan, David Lammy and Diane Abbott endlessly. Twats who think they are being witty when they are just crass, saddos who game the moderation to insult “musl1ms”. We frankly don’t want them, like them or need them. Breitbart are welcome to them.
To be fair to the EU they did offer the UK transition controls when the new accession countries joined the EU in 2004 to address this but Blair in the most idiotic decision of his premiership refused to take them
It would be like arguing if Trump had soldiers eject all his opponents from Congress, then those that remained named him Emperor Trump the Magnificent, that 'the Congress' decided it as though what remained was the legal, whole body.
The primary of parliament was confirmed by the Civil War, though it took awhile longer before it became properly codified of course as is our way, but nor are the actions of elements of the Commons during that time able to be treated as direct precedents. It was a chaotic time, and of course legally there would have been no way to sentence Charles at the time so departures were needed, but it wasn't most of the initial parliamentarian side, let alone 'The Commons' which decided to.
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1006573618455773186?s=21
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1006573990943641600?s=21
When I first came to consider Britain's place in the EU before the 2016 Referendum, I started from a position of frustrated acceptance but, after listening to some arguments on here and doing some reading and research, I cam to close that whatever its original noble intentions, the EU had become something else, fundamentally illiberal and more interested in the economic prosperity of the few than the overall economic and social fabric of Europe.
I hoped we could rejoin EFTA after leaving the EU and re-invigorate that organisation as a de counterweight to the EU, a loose association of free trading nations working together where appropriate but each continuing to affirm a strong national identity. To that end, we would offer (perhaps) to accommodate the EFTA HQ in London and develop relations between EFTA and non-European trading blocs.
I recognised we would need our own bilateral deal with the EU analogous to but not the same as the one the Swiss obtained where our issues with Freedom of Movement were recognised but where our desire to enjoy a tariff-free and harmonious economic relationship with the EU was recognised.
Inside the EEA (perhaps) but outside the SM and the CU with perhaps a new UK Customs Territory allowing Ulster (perhaps) different border arrangements might be a way forward but as I said a couple of nights ago, we are now running out of both can and road and it may be the Prime Minister might have to sacrifice the unity of the Conservative Party for the greater economic interests of the country - perhaps this has always been where Bruges, Maastricht, Lisbon and other developments have been taking the Tories.
https://twitter.com/montie/status/1006596888798420992?s=21
It was an impressive, strong rebellion in the end. I underestimated them. The Tory Remainers are on the march.
But, I think it was her poor leadership and campaigning skills, together with a dire manifesto, that sunk her chances of a good majority.
I don’t think her Brexit position was decisive. It would have led to europhile/centre-left rallying around Corbyn regardless, to try frustrate it, but that wouldn’t have been enough on its own to cost her a majority.
There's no reason why the United Kingdom couldn't have a bilateral agreement with the EU from within EFTA which respects our position on Freedom of Movement for example. The quid pro quo of that might be the recognition of Ulster as having Special Member Status just as the Channel Islands currently enjoy within the EU.
I suspect a deal will be around us losing formal influence (i.e. votes) but having quite a bit of informal influence on areas of alignment, and a joint UK-EU adjucator on areas of divergence.