But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
I cannot remember how long it took, but the Dangerous Dogs Act went through very quickly and was noted for being a shambles because so little debate occurred.
The firearms one after Dunblane went through very quickly as well. Clearly Acts can happen fast if there is a need.
The need has to be accompanied by the Government's willingness to present such Legislation to Parliament.
I see today is PB's occasional foray into Remainer self-help groupery. 'Leavers, they're so stupid and racist and racist and stupid. I shall stamp my foot over and over and over'. Bless.
John, me old China, sometimes you just have to tell it as it is. Anyone voting for Brexit who was unaware of the consequences for the island of Ireland can be categorised as a moron.
Perhaps David should have thought a little harder about the question on the ballot.
Why so?
How would it go?
'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union, bearing in mind that if you vote to Leave, Ireland will erupt in flames, so please don't be a moron'.
Droll as your post may be, you, like others, are missing the point. Allow me to simplify:
Voting Leave and being: 1) Indifferent to the fact that Ireland will erupt in flames 2) Happy that Ireland will erupt in flames 3) Eager that Ireland will erupt in flames
= not moron.
Voting Leave and being: 1) Amazed, flabbergasted, or otherwise surprised that Ireland will erupt in flames
= moron.
so whos going to be killing who ?
Id like to tip off my brother
I have no idea if anyone is going to be killed - I sincerely hope not. I have never mentioned anyone being killed. Not sure why you should have asked me. @John_M seems to think that Ireland will erupt in flames so perhaps he has a greater insight.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
How long did the legislation take though? and thats with something which is 'fairly' minor and uncontraversial.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
It would be massively controversial, with a huge amount of disagreement over the wording and options, as well as who the campaign groups would be. There would be no guarantee that the EU would grant an Article 50 extension, although they probably would - but on what terms, and for how long? There would be no clarity on what the alternatives to the deal would be - if remaining in the EU, on what terms, and if leaving without a deal, what exactly would that mean? And what if the referendum lands us back where we started?
Remainers like to accuse Leavers of not having attended to the details of what leaving the EU would mean; this would be the same in reverse, but with an impossibly tight timetable to boot.
And the ERG would simply have to use procedural devices to delay the primary legislation required - which would be very easy - for the whole thing to end up with a no-deal crash-out.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
General elections are routine, so you can get away with a compressed timetable.
Imagine that there was some proof for the claims. Imagine that we still believed in innocence until proven guilty. Imagine that hue and cry and the Lynch mob remained in the past where they belong.
Very good Charles. Well done. Did you even read it?
Women have been harassed sexually since time immemorial and they have lots of experience of men saying things like "Imagine that there was some proof"
The hue and cry of the sexual lynch-mob needs to stay in the present and exist in the future because sexual harassment - of BOTH sexes - needs to stop. The way we did it in the past has to stop because all we did was cover up and denial.
The whole thing was not necessarily about Kavanaugh & Trump - that just gives a modern context for a problem that has existed for a long time - that a man's status is more important than any women he assaulted or raped. Blame the victim.
It has to stop.
#meToo
[Footnote - if you fail to grasp this then do not place money on any election in the USA in which females vote, because they do grasp the problem - thus the polls above - and I hope they vote the dinosaurs and abusers out]
I did, and I completely agree with the principle that sexual assault (I don't really distinguish between sexual harassment and sexual assault) is wrong, should be condemned and punished where the evidence is available. Blaming the victim is wrong.
Trump is clearly a deeply unpleasant man. I wouldn't have voted for him had I had a vote (and my wife voted for Johnson, despite not liking some of his views).
But the issue I have with hue and cry is that people get punished regardless of guilty or innocent. A society which encourages denunciation and regards that as sufficient for conviction is not one I want to see
Thank you for the clarification on your position, but on the "Kavanaugh case" - he was accused, the issue was examined, law enforcement looked at it and he was cleared by them and proceeded to get the job. In his case "the hue and cry" made no difference. Personally, I make no judgement on Kavanaugh, but what this episode did do was to highlight an issue that, all too often, is swept under the carpet.
We need to make sexual harassment as socially unacceptable as paedophilia.
The way I read the "balls" article (which I thought was contrived and too long, to be honest, rather than moving and impactful) was that it was a response to Kavanaugh. But harassment should be socially unacceptable.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
I cannot remember how long it took, but the Dangerous Dogs Act went through very quickly and was noted for being a shambles because so little debate occurred.
The firearms one after Dunblane went through very quickly as well. Clearly Acts can happen fast if there is a need.
The need has to be accompanied by the Government's willingness to present such Legislation to Parliament.
I understand that. The point is that if the govt wants to do it, it has the time to do it, certainly this side of Xmas and maybe as late as January.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
Sears to file for Chapter 11? "Wall Street is heading south quite quickly in the wake of a rise in US producer prices last month, suggesting there is no relief on inflation pressures in sight. The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average are both down about 1% 30 minutes into the trading day, while the Nasdaq Composite has sunk 1.8%."
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
General elections are routine, so you can get away with a compressed timetable.
Same people carry out local and general elections using the same electoral roll which is now rolling and has been for some time. Calling a GE or a referendum delay is one for the mechanics of parliament, not the people carrying out the task.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
General elections are routine, so you can get away with a compressed timetable.
Same people carry out local and general elections using the same electoral roll which is now rolling and has been for some time. Calling a GE or a referendum delay is one for the mechanics of parliament, not the people carrying out the task.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
Wonderful whinge on the WATO from a women complaining that she won't get a pension at 60. One of her arguments against being treated equally to men is that in the past she wasn't and her example of this was that when she was younger she was once told she couldn't order drinks at a bar. Wow!
Worth hearing if only because it shows (as per our discussion on the previous thread) that whatever people say about wanting to pay more taxes/have equality etc in practice if it makes them worse off they suddenly become a special case.
And, second, there was an interesting discussion about how previous governments had effectively snaffled the relevant pension fund for current spending, how this was a disgrace etc. So governments seizing pension funds could become a political headache, not just for those doing it but also those thinking about it.
Yes, where's the campaign for more female rubbish collectors? I must have missed it. It's awful that about 99% are men at present.
Presumably that is because women have a strong preference away from such jobs. The campaigns arise in areas where they are being discriminated against, i.e. they want the jobs but feel they are being discriminated against so can't get them.
I’ll put that through google translate: We want our cake and we want to eat it.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
General elections are routine, so you can get away with a compressed timetable.
Same people carry out local and general elections using the same electoral roll which is now rolling and has been for some time. Calling a GE or a referendum delay is one for the mechanics of parliament, not the people carrying out the task.
The tricky part is deciding who are the campaigning organisations and stuff related to that. The same issues don’t apply in general and local elections.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
It would be massively controversial, with a huge amount of disagreement over the wording and options, as well as who the campaign groups would be. There would be no guarantee that the EU would grant an Article 50 extension, although they probably would - but on what terms, and for how long? There would be no clarity on what the alternatives to the deal would be - if remaining in the EU, on what terms, and if leaving without a deal, what exactly would that mean? And what if the referendum lands us back where we started?
Remainers like to accuse Leavers of not having attended to the details of what leaving the EU would mean; this would be the same in reverse, but with an impossibly tight timetable to boot.
And the ERG would simply have to use procedural devices to delay the primary legislation required - which would be very easy - for the whole thing to end up with a no-deal crash-out.
It's a non-starter.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Wonderful whinge on the WATO from a women complaining that she won't get a pension at 60. One of her arguments against being treated equally to men is that in the past she wasn't and her example of this was that when she was younger she was once told she couldn't order drinks at a bar. Wow!
Worth hearing if only because it shows (as per our discussion on the previous thread) that whatever people say about wanting to pay more taxes/have equality etc in practice if it makes them worse off they suddenly become a special case.
And, second, there was an interesting discussion about how previous governments had effectively snaffled the relevant pension fund for current spending, how this was a disgrace etc. So governments seizing pension funds could become a political headache, not just for those doing it but also those thinking about it.
Yes, where's the campaign for more female rubbish collectors? I must have missed it. It's awful that about 99% are men at present.
Presumably that is because women have a strong preference away from such jobs. The campaigns arise in areas where they are being discriminated against, i.e. they want the jobs but feel they are being discriminated against so can't get them.
I’ll put that through google translate: We want our cake and we want to eat it.
Yes, I see no great push for gender quotas on bin lorries.
There was a story this lunchtime of one of Corbyn controlled London labour councils being in chaos over business tenancies and the conclusion was that Corbyn's labour are excelllent as a protest group but do not have a clue when protests end and they have to take decisons and govern.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
So what would the Speaker do if MP after MP raised Points of Order on spurious grounds to demand a vote or at a debate? Suspend them? It would soon become apparent that many MPs wanted such a thing and the Press would report it. If the govt refused it would then be under immense pressure given the circumstances.
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
Wonderful whinge on the WATO from a women complaining that she won't get a pension at 60.
Equality is equality and we have to take the rough with the smooth.
Of course, the truth is that we are nowhere near equality yet, although we are closer than our mothers, grandmothers, etc.
What really annoyed me was that she is roughly my generation and claimed not to have known about the change to the pension age even though it was well publicised and I and my friends all know about it. Her complaint was in essence that she had not made proper provision for the additional years and now expected the government to help her. It would be a stronger case but for the fact that she had plenty of notice but chose to ignore it.
We may not be at perfect equality yet but that is no excuse for trying to opt out of those equalising steps we are taking as a society. If women want to earn for themselves and not be dependant on men, then that means taking steps to provide for yourself in sickness and old age not play the poor weak woman card when it suits.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
So what would the Speaker do if MP after MP raised Points of Order on spurious grounds to demand a vote or at a debate? Suspend them? It would soon become apparent that many MPs wanted such a thing and the Press would report it. If the govt refused it would then be under immense pressure given the circumstances.
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
I was being cheeky, but the executive does control timetabling for the most part. You could imagine an opposition debate on the matter, but those are not binding on the government.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
And if you don't have a majority for the negotiated deal, what are you left with?
There are only three legally possible outcomes to Article 50: ratification of a withdrawal agreement, leaving with no deal, or revoking notification.
No deal is a risk but not a viable option so once a withdrawal agreement is on the table there are only two possible outcomes: ratify it or revoke notification. By your own admission parliament is incapable of making that decision so by a process of elimination a referendum has to happen.
There was a story this lunchtime of one of Corbyn controlled London labour councils being in chaos over business tenancies and the conclusion was that Corbyn's labour are excelllent as a protest group but do not have a clue when protests end and they have to take decisons and govern.
This is very succinct
TBH, a lot of these groups are like the Roger McGough poem, to wit:
'I wanna be the leader I wanna be the leader Can I be the leader? Can I? I can? Promise? Promise? Yippee I'm the leader I'm the leader
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
So what would the Speaker do if MP after MP raised Points of Order on spurious grounds to demand a vote or at a debate? Suspend them? It would soon become apparent that many MPs wanted such a thing and the Press would report it. If the govt refused it would then be under immense pressure given the circumstances.
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
Precisely. The government's position is very weak. If it tries to force parliament to accept a poor deal by threats it will not succeed, and nor should it.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
The AV referendum was within 11 weeks of the legislation gaining Royal assent so there's time, if parliament wanted it. Even controversial legislation has been passed within a month in recent history where there's been some urgency.
I cannot remember how long it took, but the Dangerous Dogs Act went through very quickly and was noted for being a shambles because so little debate occurred.
The firearms one after Dunblane went through very quickly as well. Clearly Acts can happen fast if there is a need.
The need has to be accompanied by the Government's willingness to present such Legislation to Parliament.
I understand that. The point is that if the govt wants to do it, it has the time to do it, certainly this side of Xmas and maybe as late as January.
If we take May's statements at face value, the willingness does not appear to exist.
So now the crux is whether May will cave at the thought that Barnier has explicitly threatened some form of customs check. Of course "administrative" can include away from the border, technology-based, etc. But it could also mean at the border.
It is a hell of a set of dice that May is rolling.
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
So what would the Speaker do if MP after MP raised Points of Order on spurious grounds to demand a vote or at a debate? Suspend them? It would soon become apparent that many MPs wanted such a thing and the Press would report it. If the govt refused it would then be under immense pressure given the circumstances.
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
The Speaker would not have a role in this really. At the end of the day if Parliament is so upset at the failure of the Government to respond to its demands it can pass a Vote of No Confidence. Would that be at all likely?
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
So what would the Speaker do if MP after MP raised Points of Order on spurious grounds to demand a vote or at a debate? Suspend them? It would soon become apparent that many MPs wanted such a thing and the Press would report it. If the govt refused it would then be under immense pressure given the circumstances.
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
Sounds a good idea but sadly opposing mps would be demanding their own points of order and it would be a bitter and terrible spectacle of our democracy
I feel we are moving towards a second referendum but those supporting it need to get rid of this dishonest 'people's vote' nonsense.
However, I do not see how it comes about other than TM being replaced by a remainer. However, that would prompt even more attempts to sabotage government businees,
Some say a GE but how would that change anything.
I would like a cross section of mps from all parties to come together and agree a Norway ++ deal and back TM to negotiate it and vote with her government on pre agreed business.
Pipe dream but everything seems madness at present
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
So now the crux is whether May will cave at the thought that Barnier has explicitly threatened some form of customs check. Of course "administrative" can include away from the border, technology-based, etc. But it could also mean at the border.
It is a hell of a set of dice that May is rolling.
WIth Arlene's very real threat this morning ? No chance.
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
A referendum on what? Questions? Precisely, please. In a form which will enable them to be executed without further negotiation with third parties.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
A referendum on what? Questions? Precisely. In a form which will enable them to be executed without further negotiation with third parties.
Leave/Remain in the form of Ratify/Revoke. Both options will be in our gift once we have a withdrawal agreement negotiated and on the table.
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
There is a commitment not to have a hard border. Any regulatory discrepancy can be either between NI and the RoI or between NI and GB. It has to be somewhere if we don't get Chequers. If it is somewhere it has to be enforced.
If it is between RoI and NI and is enforced then you are in trouble with the border "clever" (ie uninvented) technology. If it is between NI and GB then Arlene would like a word.
The GFA doesn't mention it specifically (hi @RobD) - but TMay has committed to no hard border many, many times.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
A referendum on what? Questions? Precisely. In a form which will enable them to be executed without further negotiation with third parties.
Leave/Remain in the form of Ratify/Revoke. Both options will be in our gift once with have a withdrawal agreement negotiated and on the table.
Remain on what terms? As if it never happened or something different? It is not in our gift.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
While I think the chances of a second referendum are increasing I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how it would pan out. At this moment I have no idea how I would vote
I thought that, apart from people who have large amounts of money squirrelled away in various offshore islands (or Ireland’s), anyone who knows anything thinks 'no deal’ (AKA ‘Just Leaving’) is a terrible idea.
So now the crux is whether May will cave at the thought that Barnier has explicitly threatened some form of customs check. Of course "administrative" can include away from the border, technology-based, etc. But it could also mean at the border.
It is a hell of a set of dice that May is rolling.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
A referendum on what? Questions? Precisely. In a form which will enable them to be executed without further negotiation with third parties.
Leave/Remain in the form of Ratify/Revoke. Both options will be in our gift once with have a withdrawal agreement negotiated and on the table.
Remain on what terms? As if it never happened or something different? It is not in our gift.
As if Cameron's renegotiation had never happened. Obviously the political context would be utterly changed and you can't turn back the clock, but legally it would be the status quo ante.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
While I think the chances of a second referendum are increasing I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how it would pan out. At this moment I have no idea how I would vote
How would the questions on the ballot paper be framed?
But it's very unlikely that the only alternative will be a no deal crash out. There are bound to be amendments demanding a new referendum and/or an extension of article 50.
An amendment doesn't make either of those happen, and there's no time for a referendum anyway.
Greece managed to hold a referendum in less than a month. And until recently the formal U.K. general election timetable was three weeks long - the Feb 1974 election was held precisely three weeks after it was announced. So time could certainly be found if necessary.
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
But nobody can force the Government to table Legislation it does not wish to see enacted! Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
In the circumstances we find ourselves I do not think the government could refuse to abide by the will of parliament. Why bother to have a parliament at all if the government does not listen to it. And, as we know, one of the main benefits of Brexit will be a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty....
How can its will be determined if it can’t vote on the matter?
Sounds a good idea but sadly opposing mps would be demanding their own points of order and it would be a bitter and terrible spectacle of our democracy
I feel we are moving towards a second referendum but those supporting it need to get rid of this dishonest 'people's vote' nonsense.
However, I do not see how it comes about other than TM being replaced by a remainer. However, that would prompt even more attempts to sabotage government businees,
Some say a GE but how would that change anything.
I would like a cross section of mps from all parties to come together and agree a Norway ++ deal and back TM to negotiate it and vote with her government on pre agreed business.
Pipe dream but everything seems madness at present
Given the chaos now, I'd take your solution with a big sigh of relief. And given how far apart we were 6 or so months ago, that's no mean feat.
All the talk about the deal being close, it seems more that the deadline is close. I'd assumed that there would be a truly lousy deal agreed with Barnier, and the drama would come in the meaningful vote. But the language and red lines on the Irish Border right now make a deal feel miles away and there isn't enough fudge in Ireland to cover the length of the border. Maybe we should start gaming no deal at the November summit instead?
If we take May's statements at face value, the willingness does not appear to exist.
"We risk ending up with no Brexit at all."
How?
This is her attempt to intimidate the ERG - back me or no Brexit.
And her attempt to intimidate Labour remainers is - back me or no deal.
Such is the looking glass world that Brexit has created, the PM is advancing two diametraically opposed propositions at the same time.
To be fair to May, she is working to achieve contradictory outcomes. The EU can't help and the DUP won't. She doesn't want a No Deal and she's tried her best to fudge things, but it's not likely to work. Which does she dislike least, 'No Deal' or a 'People's Vote'. She may like to consider which would be least damaging for the UK.
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
There is a commitment not to have a hard border. Any regulatory discrepancy can be either between NI and the RoI or between NI and GB. It has to be somewhere if we don't get Chequers. If it is somewhere it has to be enforced.
If it is between RoI and NI and is enforced then you are in trouble with the border "clever" (ie uninvented) technology. If it is between NI and GB then Arlene would like a word.
The GFA doesn't mention it specifically (hi @RobD) - but TMay has committed to no hard border many, many times.
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
You could argue the reverse - the GFA enshrines the principle of 'consent' - which Barnier's backstop drives a coach & horses through - what 'consent' do the people of NI have in the regs the EU imposes on them?
The EU has always had a bit of a blind spot for 'democracy'.
But nobody wants no deal - except Farage and forty ERG MPs. And for very many very good reasons.
You forget that the Labour Party leadership wants no deal.
And there are many in the people's vote camp who also want no deal because they think the threat of chaos will force another referendum which will reverse the result of the first.
If the (maybe I should say 'a') government said they wanted to hold a People's Vote referendum why would the EU not extend A50 for as long as we needed? Hasn't Macron and others said as much already? Then there'd be no rush at all.
Because it's a pain for them as well. They won't want this psychodrama of Brexit to drag on indefinitely, and there'd be no guarantee that holding a second People's Vote would resolve the issue.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There is no good easy solution. It may be a 'pain' for the EU to extend A50, they would have to have some discussions and votes after all, but you're not seriously suggesting that the pain would be greater than a disorderly British exit? The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to. A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
While I think the chances of a second referendum are increasing I have no idea, nor does anyone else, how it would pan out. At this moment I have no idea how I would vote
How would the questions on the ballot paper be framed?
A very good question and just one of those tortuous problems brexit has thrown up
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
There is a commitment not to have a hard border. Any regulatory discrepancy can be either between NI and the RoI or between NI and GB. It has to be somewhere if we don't get Chequers. If it is somewhere it has to be enforced.
If it is between RoI and NI and is enforced then you are in trouble with the border "clever" (ie uninvented) technology. If it is between NI and GB then Arlene would like a word.
The GFA doesn't mention it specifically (hi @RobD) - but TMay has committed to no hard border many, many times.
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
I'm no expert (had enough of them) but I think that's a fair summary.
I thought it was telling that in May's speech after Salzburg, the two commitments made for a no deal scenario were that EU nationals currently here could stay, and that the Government would try to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. That seemed a huge admission that it wouldn't be fully possible in the worst case.
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
You could argue the reverse - the GFA enshrines the principle of 'consent' - which Barnier's backstop drives a coach & horses through - what 'consent' do the people of NI have in the regs the EU imposes on them?
The EU has always had a bit of a blind spot for 'democracy'.
Indeed.
The way out of this impasse has been simple for a while and should have been done after Salzburg. May should announce that we can not move any further on the Irish backstop so we are preparing instead for No Deal. In the meantime if Barnier can reach agreement with Arlene Foster on a workable backstop then we will be prepared to resume talks on a deal but we won't talk any further until then.
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Sky - Barnier announcing a deal is within reach by next Wednesday
I very much doubt it if his tweets are to go by
And his speech today reaffirms that checks on goods travelling between GB and NI cannot be avoided, although they need not be carried out at the border. If the DUP accept this it will be a major climbdown on their part.
Sky - Barnier announcing a deal is within reach by next Wednesday
I very much doubt it if his tweets are to go by
And his speech today reaffirms that checks on goods travelling between GB and NI cannot be avoided, although they need not be carried out at the border. If the DUP accept this it will be a major climbdown on their part.
Who knows anymore.
If he is going to announce it next wednesday about 12 noon just as PMQ's starts would be fun
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
You could argue the reverse - the GFA enshrines the principle of 'consent' - which Barnier's backstop drives a coach & horses through - what 'consent' do the people of NI have in the regs the EU imposes on them?
The EU has always had a bit of a blind spot for 'democracy'.
Indeed.
The way out of this impasse has been simple for a while and should have been done after Salzburg. May should announce that we can not move any further on the Irish backstop so we are preparing instead for No Deal. In the meantime if Barnier can reach agreement with Arlene Foster on a workable backstop then we will be prepared to resume talks on a deal but we won't talk any further until then.
If Barnier has reached agreement with Arlene F it will have cost him money.
Ha. 'No Surrender' appears on Orangemen banners more often even than 'God Save the Queen' or 'Remember the Battle of the Boyne'. But I expect that's what you're alluding to. Anyone expecting the DUP to fudge or climb down may well be disappointed.
Arlene Foster talking absolute sense on Sky just now in between meetings in Brussels and saying that TM has always been a Unionist and has said she will not allow an Irish sea border
It is sad we wasted all the time with Boris and David Davis when the real negotiator who should have led has been in plain sight
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Thanks. But even if May caves in but then it doesn't get through Parliament then you are back to the situation where the hard border has to happen unless there is another government which can agree to a solution. And that might not happen before 29 March. Or, indeed, at all.
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
I am probably thick. But I still don't understand why the UK leaving the EU while continuing to comply with the GFA legally requires NI to be under EU jurisdiction for certain purposes. Is there something in the GFA which compels this - legally?
You could argue the reverse - the GFA enshrines the principle of 'consent' - which Barnier's backstop drives a coach & horses through - what 'consent' do the people of NI have in the regs the EU imposes on them?
The EU has always had a bit of a blind spot for 'democracy'.
Indeed.
The way out of this impasse has been simple for a while and should have been done after Salzburg. May should announce that we can not move any further on the Irish backstop so we are preparing instead for No Deal. In the meantime if Barnier can reach agreement with Arlene Foster on a workable backstop then we will be prepared to resume talks on a deal but we won't talk any further until then.
If Barnier has reached agreement with Arlene F it will have cost him money.
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak. Not because we must.
The DUP wouldn't fold so we should make them our negotiators. That way if there's a deal it satisfies everyone and if there isn't the EU can compromise to avoid that.
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
e.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak. Not because we must.
The DUP wouldn't fold so we should make them our negotiators. That way if there's a deal it satisfies everyone and if there isn't the EU can compromise to avoid that.
Does Barnier understand Ulster-Scots? Language, I mean!
One final question from me. The DUP's strength comes from the current Parliamentary arithmetic. Voting down the Budget possibly resulting in a Corbyn government will remove their leverage.
So isn't it in their interests to get some sort of deal now with Barnier rather than go for broke and end up with no leverage at all?
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
e.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak. Not because we must.
The DUP wouldn't fold so we should make them our negotiators. That way if there's a deal it satisfies everyone and if there isn't the EU can compromise to avoid that.
Does Barnier understand Ulster-Scots? Language, I mean!
I am sure that "Ulster says NO!!" translates easily.
So the GFA doesn't specifically mention not having a hard border. Yes?
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
Sort of, yes.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
Except the EU are saying "to help with it and let's have the hard border" if they don't get 100% of what they want. They won't compromise to avoid a border so why should we?
Because we must. And they know it.
Because our negotiators are weak.
Our negotiators are weak because Leave promised 'no downside, only considerable upside'. If Leave had promised a diamond hard Brexit and still won the referendum then our negotiators would be invincible.
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
I think we have the possibility of a zombie government, protected by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but without the support of the House to get any of its meaningful business through.
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.
This isn't even a remotely difficult choice, Brussels can't vote down the Gov'ts budget.
But no deal means in all likelihood the fall of the government.
Not by November it doesn't. Also how exactly does this come about - Are Soubry, Morgan, Grieve and Clarke going to vote against confidence in their own Government ?
I think we have the possibility of a zombie government, protected by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, but without the support of the House to get any of its meaningful business through.
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.
Not really. If T May falls and the tories can't get a new deal with the DUP, then Liz would be honour bound to ask for Corbyn to form a government. If he can't then surely she would then instruct MPs to vote to disband the house for an election.
Comments
Attempting to frame the choice for MPs as May's deal or Armageddon will not work.
Remainers like to accuse Leavers of not having attended to the details of what leaving the EU would mean; this would be the same in reverse, but with an impossibly tight timetable to boot.
And the ERG would simply have to use procedural devices to delay the primary legislation required - which would be very easy - for the whole thing to end up with a no-deal crash-out.
It's a non-starter.
Parliament would be faced with the clear need to change the Government first. Would that happen?
Sears to file for Chapter 11?
"Wall Street is heading south quite quickly in the wake of a rise in US producer prices last month, suggesting there is no relief on inflation pressures in sight.
The S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average are both down about 1% 30 minutes into the trading day, while the Nasdaq Composite has sunk 1.8%."
FTSE 100 and European markets fall again.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-45759277
We want our cake and we want to eat it.
This is very succinct
Parliament can make its will felt. The UK would look even dafter than we do now if large numbers were suspended for 28 days for demanding the right to deal / discuss a matter of huge national importance and then having the Executive ignore a consensus in the House.
We may not be at perfect equality yet but that is no excuse for trying to opt out of those equalising steps we are taking as a society. If women want to earn for themselves and not be dependant on men, then that means taking steps to provide for yourself in sickness and old age not play the poor weak woman card when it suits.
In any case, it's a political impossibility for a Conservative government to support it in present circumstances. Remaining without a referendum is unthinkable, a referendum is impractical, leaving with no deal is unthinkable - when you've eliminated the impossible, only a negotiated deal remains.
There are only three legally possible outcomes to Article 50: ratification of a withdrawal agreement, leaving with no deal, or revoking notification.
No deal is a risk but not a viable option so once a withdrawal agreement is on the table there are only two possible outcomes: ratify it or revoke notification. By your own admission parliament is incapable of making that decision so by a process of elimination a referendum has to happen.
'I wanna be the leader
I wanna be the leader
Can I be the leader?
Can I? I can?
Promise? Promise?
Yippee I'm the leader
I'm the leader
OK what shall we do?"
How?
May can't agree to that,
May won't agree to that.
Tin ear Barnier indeed.
Goody!!!
It is a hell of a set of dice that May is rolling.
I feel we are moving towards a second referendum but those supporting it need to get rid of this dishonest 'people's vote' nonsense.
However, I do not see how it comes about other than TM being replaced by a remainer. However, that would prompt even more attempts to sabotage government businees,
Some say a GE but how would that change anything.
I would like a cross section of mps from all parties to come together and agree a Norway ++ deal and back TM to negotiate it and vote with her government on pre agreed business.
Pipe dream but everything seems madness at present
The 2nd People's Vote would resolve the issue, there would be spelt out options rather than the last vote where Leave could mean whatever you wanted it to.
A referendum is not impractical and, given an A50 extension, not even that difficult.
And her attempt to intimidate Labour remainers is - back me or no deal.
Such is the looking glass world that Brexit has created, the PM is advancing two diametraically opposed propositions at the same time.
If it is between RoI and NI and is enforced then you are in trouble with the border "clever" (ie uninvented) technology. If it is between NI and GB then Arlene would like a word.
The GFA doesn't mention it specifically (hi @RobD) - but TMay has committed to no hard border many, many times.
And for very many very good reasons.
But sanitary and phytosanitary checks would have to take place at the border.
The island of Ireland would have to remain a single epidemiological area, he says.
He says there would be checks on 100% not 10% of live animals and animal-derived products. That would be a significant scaling up, he says.
He says he wants to ensure that procedures would not be too burdensome on small businesses."
Mot sure the DUP will bring down the government over that
All the talk about the deal being close, it seems more that the deadline is close. I'd assumed that there would be a truly lousy deal agreed with Barnier, and the drama would come in the meaningful vote. But the language and red lines on the Irish Border right now make a deal feel miles away and there isn't enough fudge in Ireland to cover the length of the border. Maybe we should start gaming no deal at the November summit instead?
I have no idea what has prompted that.
Anyway, Ladbrokes also has 4 on there being another referendum before the end of 2019.
Which does she dislike least, 'No Deal' or a 'People's Vote'. She may like to consider which would be least damaging for the UK.
The impasse arises from post-referendum commitments made by Mrs May. Yes?
So this is not a legal issue arising from the GFA but a result of political decisions taken by the British government and the EU, the latter because the Irish government do not want any change to what exists now, the former because they hope thereby to get a post-Brexit FTA. Yes?
But legally there is no obligation to avoid a hard border other than the WTO rules which say that, absent an FTA, a country must not discriminate i.e. whatever sort of border the EU has with the UK it must also have with other non-EU countries with whom it shares a border.
Is that about it?
So one (chaotic) way out of this is to say that having an Irish backstop is simply not possible and therefore the UK will leave without any sort of a deal on 29 March. In which case the EU would be obliged to impose a hard border unless they were prepared to have a non-existent border in the East.
Another is to keep the UK within the SM and CU, pending agreement on an FTA? (Which could be years, of course.)
The EU has always had a bit of a blind spot for 'democracy'.
I thought it was telling that in May's speech after Salzburg, the two commitments made for a no deal scenario were that EU nationals currently here could stay, and that the Government would try to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland. That seemed a huge admission that it wouldn't be fully possible in the worst case.
I very much doubt it if his tweets are to go by
The way out of this impasse has been simple for a while and should have been done after Salzburg. May should announce that we can not move any further on the Irish backstop so we are preparing instead for No Deal. In the meantime if Barnier can reach agreement with Arlene Foster on a workable backstop then we will be prepared to resume talks on a deal but we won't talk any further until then.
But if the UK leaves the EU without any deal on 29 March then it is vulnerable to a dispute action by a WTO member (assuming we go WTO, well we must do something...) because let's say that the EU and the UK refuse to establish a hard border, another WTO member can claim that under MFN having no customs checks between the two nations unfairly favours the EU and therefore they too would likewise want no customs checks on whatever it is, widgets or chickens or suchlike.
As we have all agreed on here ad infinitum, no party (save the DUP) wants a hard border. But "events", once set in motion, mean that one might occur regardless. Hence my belief that May will cave on this because she simply cannot have a situation whereby a hard border is a possibility or is out of her hands.
To say to hell with it and let's have the hard border is, as I have also mentioned once or twice, extraordinarily ignorant of Irish politics these past few hundred years as it simply cannot occur (willingly, or indeed unwillingly, and hence we are back where we started).
If he is going to announce it next wednesday about 12 noon just as PMQ's starts would be fun
Come on May do the right thing by your own countrymen not Brussels.
But I expect that's what you're alluding to.
Anyone expecting the DUP to fudge or climb down may well be disappointed.
It is sad we wasted all the time with Boris and David Davis when the real negotiator who should have led has been in plain sight
And a cave in effectively means that even though the whole UK has voted to leave the EU, a part of the UK will still be subject to EU rules. Is that correct? If so that does seem a very odd outcome.
Also, I assume the EU would be vulnerable to the same WTO action from other nations without an FTA with the EU.
The DUP wouldn't fold so we should make them our negotiators. That way if there's a deal it satisfies everyone and if there isn't the EU can compromise to avoid that.
So isn't it in their interests to get some sort of deal now with Barnier rather than go for broke and end up with no leverage at all?
Cameron's baleful legacy providing another gift to the nation.
Edit: Where by "meaningful" I mean "Brexit", since it eclipses everything at present.