I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
Well exactly. All respect to Y0kel, but what does it matter if they 'really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal' if they never bloody seem to respond to any attempts to help them achieve that support, and demand things that just are not within the gift of the government? Their words look hollow, or what they need unobtainable even if they are sincere as Y0kel says they are.
Judging by their actions they don't seem to give a hoot what option happens, and that seems more reliable than judging by their words or even the feeling of people with local knowledge of their operation.
Sincere? This is politics.
The DUP, whose voters benefit from a borderless Ireland, are performing the previously assumed impossible and having their cake while eating it. By refusing to support the Deal they promote timeless Remain while presenting as hardliners.
There is something in that. It does them no good for this thing to go off a cliff, and over here its a very different level of loss potentially in play beyond the economy being whatever percent less larger.
For the record, yep I voted leave and I'm also on record as having a problem with the ideologues within the ERG and not being keen on the Mogg so I'm not exactly in the hard core movement.
What I think should (not will) happen next. Tell me if any logical step is wrong.
1: May needs to realise her time is up. She's tried her best, she needs to look for a dignified exit. 2: May should say if there's a deal she will see it through then retire, if there's no deal she will request a long extension and retire and let her successor continue negotiations. 3: May should travel around Europe in the next few days and say this is the last chance saloon to get anything through. 4: May should point out to the EU and Ireland that her successor as PM will be elected by Tory MPs (who overwhelmingly opposed extension and still back Brexit) and by Tory members. The next PM will not be the likes of Soubry, Cooper or Starmer nor will be chosen by them either. 5: May should try and negotiate a solution that satisfies Cox and Dodds and then have a final MV3 after any new negotiations.
6a: If a deal, great, lets move on. 6b: If there's no deal, extend and have an immediate and full Tory leadership contest.
We will need to have European elections and its awkward I don't know if a Tory leadership contest could be completed before that.
HIGGINS, John Robert (Labour) 458 SIMPSON, Edwin Herbert (Liberal Democrat) 163 MILES, Stephen Joseph (North East Party) 74 FRY, Gareth David Anthony (For Britain) 20
A long extension, change of PM and new negotiations with someone with some moral authority in the chamber taking charge.
I don't think there is anybody.
Gove is the only one I can think of.
True enough Brexiteer to have more credibility with Brexiteers. Stayed loyal to May to not have pissed off Remainers. One of the faces of the Brexit campaign. Not Boris.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
"Hey, Viewcode, don't worry! Me and my squad of ultimate Brexiteers will protect you. Check it out! Independently targeting particle-beam phalanx. WHAP! Fry half a parliamentary constituency with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phase plasma pulse rifles, RPGs. We got sonic, electronic ball-breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks..."
A long extension, change of PM and new negotiations with someone with some moral authority in the chamber taking charge.
I don't think there is anybody.
Gove is the only one I can think of.
True enough Brexiteer to have more credibility with Brexiteers. Stayed loyal to May to not have pissed off Remainers. One of the faces of the Brexit campaign. Not Boris.
I think Gove is potentially a good choice, although some of the ERG view him as a traitor.
What I think should (not will) happen next. Tell me if any logical step is wrong.
1: May needs to realise her time is up. She's tried her best, she needs to look for a dignified exit. 2: May should say if there's a deal she will see it through then retire, if there's no deal she will request a long extension and retire and let her successor continue negotiations. 3: May should travel around Europe in the next few days and say this is the last chance saloon to get anything through. 4: May should point out to the EU and Ireland that her successor as PM will be elected by Tory MPs (who overwhelmingly opposed extension and still back Brexit) and by Tory members. The next PM will not be the likes of Soubry, Cooper or Starmer nor will be chosen by them either. 5: May should try and negotiate a solution that satisfies Cox and Dodds and then have a final MV3 after any new negotiations.
6a: If a deal, great, lets move on. 6b: If there's no deal, extend and have an immediate and full Tory leadership contest.
We will need to have European elections and its awkward I don't know if a Tory leadership contest could be completed before that.
Will the 27 grant an extension so the Tories can elect a headbanger who is going to try to "continue negotiations"? That sounds like exactly the kind of thing they wouldn't grant an extension for.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
Its only inconsistent if you take what you see from the ERG at face value and also assume the DUP hasn't used them somewhat, which it has. Bear in mind a number of the ERG types were clear in opposition before the DUP made their position clear. I said it last night, the DUP used them as a human shield. If you take the view they have no reason to bother, they seem to be doing a remarkably good job of suddenly wanting to bother.
They aren't aiming at the same objectives as the ERG beyond supporting Brexit and ensuring the union is maintained. Never have been and given some ERG members wouldn't give two hoots about NI in an ideological quest for their kind of Brexit, there are some interesting gaps between the two. The DUP have, somehow, got to a situation where many of the ERG grouping are relying on their opinion. Why that is, no idea but there it is.
If you look back on Monday, I posted clearly that the concessions brought back on Monday would prove challenging for the DUP to say no to and that they would hold on making a call until the morning if not the afternoon. They just sat tight. Now its all stories that the DUP are talking here and there.
Consider their existential purpose and its perfectly logical why they now want to close out on this situation.
That's great, except they may have left it too late and look like a bunch of buffoons.
Indeed they may. As I posted last night, the level of core die in a ditch opposition from the idealogue wing of the Brexiteers and the assumption of only a handful of Labour defections may mean their votes wont actually be decisive. If so, then the question becomes one of perception and seeking to protect it with the local voters. Every situation, good or bad should have an exfil route, and they working at trying to get to one right now because things are getting hairy.
Could have asked her out, immed and ammed about it, now see her with someone else, whose texting her up asking if she’s free and wants him to come round with some cards and a wet suit. Of course they are regretting it. But can they do anything about it?
DUP. Before MV2 there was at least momentum and fanfare of various documents that could act as fig leaf for whoever needed one? Fervently against it so far, what actually changes before MV3 for them to do such a fateful flip flop?
ERG. Can be pared down further, yes! but all the way to zero? can thisgroup ever be pared down to less than twen t for MV3?Some including Boris, will never vote for May’s deal, see it as too much vassalage not enough respect for Britain that can only come from no deal, One way to pare it down would be for May to announce timetable of her departure this year. However one variable eclipses growing threat of no Brexit, seeing the terms, strings, the control EU will have over Brexit at the next EU gathering, Britain weak at the summit begging, accepting distasteful terms at the hands of the EU will set a terrible anti EU, pro no deal mood back here m a shoe in for supporting May’s narrowly negotiated self-confessed imperfect deal, regardless what party they are in.
Tory remainers, soft brexiteers, back to thepeoplers. And here’s the thing, with all the focus on ERG/DUP we could be missing something that has changed since MV2. This tory grouping have become firmer, bigger, emboldened making Mays deal even harder to pass? Those in this grouping who backed may in MV2, such as Ken Clarke, can their vote be taken for granted in MV3?
There seems to be no route to a Second Referendum. The Commons rejects No Deal. I doubt if they have the guts to revoke A50. The government won't lose a VONC even if Chope the Loon switches sides, so what does that leave but the WA?
A long extension, change of PM and new negotiations with someone with some moral authority in the chamber taking charge.
The only long extension we will get will be if we shift to CU and SM BINO which the Commons will likely ultimately do
More When you promised an end to spin & triangulation but delivered constructive ambiguity. When you said members would shape policy but shut them out. When working class voters think you're a Liberal elite & affluent voters think you've sold out for Leave, maybe it's a dead end.
People like Coyle still think it is 1997, Labour will never elect the leader they want because the world has moved on in the last couple of decades. He should join the Tiggers if he just wants a Blairite tribute act.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The DUP know this too, they are looking at issues outside of Brexit as well as the issue itself. If the ERG types had shown signs of backing the deal on Tuesday they'd have probably voted for it but they waited until they saw the scale of the opposition before going for no, using the Attorney General's statement as cover.
Now you're not making any sense, since the excuse of the non-hardcore ERGers is they waited to see what the DUP thought before acting!
Its only inconsistent if you take what you see from the ERG at face value and also assume the DUP hasn't used them somewhat, which it has. Bear in mind a number of the ERG types were clear in opposition before the DUP made their position clear. I said it last night, the DUP used them as a human shield. If you take the view they have no reason to bother, they seem to be doing a remarkably good job of suddenly wanting to bother.
They aren't aiming at the same objectives as the ERG beyond supporting Brexit and ensuring the union is maintained. Never have been and given some ERG members wouldn't give two hoots about NI in an ideological quest for their kind of Brexit, there are some interesting gaps between the two. The DUP have, somehow, got to a situation where many of the ERG grouping are relying on their opinion. Why that is, no idea but there it is.
If you look back on Monday, I posted clearly that the concessions brought back on Monday would prove challenging for the DUP to say no to and that they would hold on making a call until the morning if not the afternoon. They just sat tight. Now its all stories that the DUP are talking here and there.
Consider their existential purpose and its perfectly logical why they now want to close out on this situation.
Given there will be a backstop, as a DUP person I simply wouldn't trust current or future Tory governments to refrain from divergence with the EU so as to avoid a NI sea border. I would need some pretty hard commitments to non divergence, like for example staying in the CU. Of course this is anathema to Tory supporters and MPs. Tory PMs will always favour their own folk over the DUP
Problem is, Tory Brexiteer and DUP interests aren't aligned, despite both supporting Brexit.
What I think should (not will) happen next. Tell me if any logical step is wrong.
1: May needs to realise her time is up. She's tried her best, she needs to look for a dignified exit. 2: May should say if there's a deal she will see it through then retire, if there's no deal she will request a long extension and retire and let her successor continue negotiations. 3: May should travel around Europe in the next few days and say this is the last chance saloon to get anything through. 4: May should point out to the EU and Ireland that her successor as PM will be elected by Tory MPs (who overwhelmingly opposed extension and still back Brexit) and by Tory members. The next PM will not be the likes of Soubry, Cooper or Starmer nor will be chosen by them either. 5: May should try and negotiate a solution that satisfies Cox and Dodds and then have a final MV3 after any new negotiations.
6a: If a deal, great, lets move on. 6b: If there's no deal, extend and have an immediate and full Tory leadership contest.
We will need to have European elections and its awkward I don't know if a Tory leadership contest could be completed before that.
Will the 27 grant an extension so the Tories can elect a headbanger who is going to try to "continue negotiations"? That sounds like exactly the kind of thing they wouldn't grant an extension for.
Do they have a choice?
If May resigns the Tories have a leadership contest. If May doesn't resign she'll probably face a VONC and a leadership contest before any new referendum or anything else could occur, especially if a long extension has already been granted so there's time to replace her. Ultimately we can say what we plan to use the time for, but they have a say of granting or not granting the time, once its granted that's it there's no takebacks. And if they don't grant an extension then that throws Ireland under the bus with an immediate hard border.
More When you promised an end to spin & triangulation but delivered constructive ambiguity. When you said members would shape policy but shut them out. When working class voters think you're a Liberal elite & affluent voters think you've sold out for Leave, maybe it's a dead end.
People like Coyle still think it is 1997, Labour will never elect the leader they want because the world has moved on in the last couple of decades. He should join the Tiggers if he just wants a Blairite tribute act.
That may be true and yet Corbyn has triangulated the hell out of Brexit, and has ignored the will of the membership in preference to following his own principles.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The DUP know this too,
Now you're not making any sense, since the excuse of the non-hardcore ERGers is they waited to see what the DUP thought before acting!
Its only inconsistent if you take what you see from the ERG at face value and also assume the DUP hasn't used them somewhat, which it has. Bear in mind a number of the ERG types were clear in opposition before the DUP made their position clear. I said it last night, the DUP used them as a human shield. If you take the view they have no reason to bother, they seem to be doing a remarkably good job of suddenly wanting to bother.
They aren't aiming at the same objectives as the ERG beyond supporting Brexit and ensuring the union is maintained. Never have been and given some ERG members wouldn't give two hoots about NI in an ideological quest for their kind of Brexit, there are some interesting gaps between the two. The DUP have, somehow, got to a situation where many of the ERG grouping are relying on their opinion. Why that is, no idea but there it is.
If you look back on Monday, I posted clearly that the concessions brought back on Monday would prove challenging for the DUP to say no to and that they would hold on making a call until the morning if not the afternoon. They just sat tight. Now its all stories that the DUP are talking here and there.
Consider their existential purpose and its perfectly logical why they now want to close out on this situation.
Given there will be a backstop, as a DUP person I simply wouldn't trust current or future Tory governments to refrain from divergence with the EU so as to avoid a NI sea border. I would need some pretty hard commitments to non divergence, like for example staying in the CU. Of course this is anathema to Tory supporters and MPs. Tory PMs will always favour their own folk over the DUP
Problem is, Tory Brexiteer and DUP interests aren't aligned, despite both supporting Brexit.
As soon as the DUP lose their balance of power position, there will be an Irish Sea border, and they know it.
More When you promised an end to spin & triangulation but delivered constructive ambiguity. When you said members would shape policy but shut them out. When working class voters think you're a Liberal elite & affluent voters think you've sold out for Leave, maybe it's a dead end.
People like Coyle still think it is 1997, Labour will never elect the leader they want because the world has moved on in the last couple of decades. He should join the Tiggers if he just wants a Blairite tribute act.
That may be true and yet Corbyn has triangulated the hell out of Brexit, and has ignored the will of the membership in preference to following his own principles.
The people's vote campaign didn't want MPs to go for the people's vote option today, It was a cynical move by TIG which actually damaged a second referendum.
A poll I saw of Labour members the other day showed most wanted a general election above other options. The media pointing out most Labour members voted remain isn't the same thing as them all screaming at Corbyn to do something and him refusing to do it.
It has been much the same as before where MPs with no interest in the members have been damaging the Labour party and the cause of a second referendum against the will of the members. Much to the delight of non Labour members or the small minority of Labour members who don't like Corbyn but definitely not representative of Labour members.
If Corbyn didn't represent the Labour members they would want to replace him, the problem people have with Corbyn is that he does represent the Labour members.
If he ignored the members and went back to deeply unpopular Blairite ideas then people would have less of a problem with him, Labour members want to win elections and change things though.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
A long extension, change of PM and new negotiations with someone with some moral authority in the chamber taking charge.
I don't think there is anybody.
Gove is the only one I can think of.
True enough Brexiteer to have more credibility with Brexiteers. Stayed loyal to May to not have pissed off Remainers. One of the faces of the Brexit campaign. Not Boris.
I think Gove is potentially a good choice, although some of the ERG view him as a traitor.
Remind me how the ERG’s search for purity is going so far? “Push for No Deal, Get Four Year Extension”; “Nominate Bojo, Get Rudd” (I exaggerate for effect!)
Also, never underestimate the power of loyalty to the outgoing leader in a Tory leadership contest. While I don’t doubt they’re ready for a change and ardently Eurosceptic, I reckon most Tory members would say TM did what she could, and probably won’t thank those who’ve harmed her. Which gives Gove, Hunt and Javid a start against Bojo etc, if not a slam dunk.
Assuming there is a "long" extension, I think May will try for a referendum of her Deal yes or no. If that is no, I think she stands down and the Tories elect someone else to try something else. If that something else can't get parliamentary approval, then the new Tory PM calls a GE.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
Assuming there is a "long" extension, I think May will try for a referendum of her Deal yes or no. If that is no, I think she stands down and the Tories elect someone else to try something else. If that something else can't get parliamentary approval, then the new Tory PM calls a GE.
If there is a "long" extension then May will be gone.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
No. Until they vote 'for' something they are just whistling in the wind. Once the EU decide to grant no further extensions, Parliament must vote to either accept the deal or revoke. Voting to refute a No Deal is like voting to refute gravity.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
Civil War it is then.
We get that with No Deal anyway, at least the economy and Union would be safer with revoke, personally I think extension and some form of Customs Union and Single Market BINO the likeliest outcome
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
Civil War it is then.
You sound like Lionel Shriver on Newsnight yesterday, complaining that Leavers haven’t burnt down Oxford Street.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
Civil War it is then.
We get that with No Deal anyway, at least the economy and Union would be safer with revoke
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
No. Until they vote 'for' something they are just whistling in the wind. Once the EU decide to grant no further extensions, Parliament must vote to either accept the deal or revoke. Voting to refute a No Deal is like voting to refute gravity.
But now they've woken like lions after slumber. In unvanquishable number. Oh yeah.
Not only do they have a choice, but every one of them individually has a choice, because it has to be unanimous.
"Taking back control" has become prostrating ourselves before 27 countries and begging them to save us from the consequences of our own folly.
You didn't read the rest of my post it seems.
They have a choice whether to grant an extension or not. They have no choice on what we do after an extension has been granted.
May could go to the Council and say we need a long extension, I am changing my red lines. May could go to the Council and say we need a long extension, Parliament is going to vote for a second referendum.
Whatever May says is meaningless. She doesn't carry Parliament. The second they approve an extension its done, May could be ousted and we could get a new PM in who puts in their own red lines or whatever.
May said the UK would ratify this deal last November. We haven't. However the Council votes on an extension has no bearing on what we do afterwards.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
No. Until they vote 'for' something they are just whistling in the wind. Once the EU decide to grant no further extensions, Parliament must vote to either accept the deal or revoke. Voting to refute a No Deal is like voting to refute gravity.
The EU voting to grant no further extensions is voting to enforce no deal. Its not going to happen realistically.
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
No. Until they vote 'for' something they are just whistling in the wind. Once the EU decide to grant no further extensions, Parliament must vote to either accept the deal or revoke. Voting to refute a No Deal is like voting to refute gravity.
The EU voting to grant no further extensions is voting to enforce no deal. Its not going to happen realistically.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
I repeat, again, regarding the DUP if it now still isn't evident to some. They really do want to find a way to achieve support for the May deal if they can. They just happen to have come to 'talk' at a moment when they have quite a long and flexible lever.
I believe this. But the EU has closed negotiations, so what left is there for May to say to them?
The EU closed negotiations in November. Didn't stop them having a talk a few days ago. Conveniently there's more meetings scheduled with the EU in the next couple of weeks already.
I repeat what should have happened all along. Get Barnier, May, Varadkar and the DUP [I don't know if its Dodds or Foster who is really in charge] in the same room, metaphorically lock the doors and tell them they can come out once they've reached an agreement.
They didn't renegotiate one word of the WA, as they said they wouldn't. They said they won't renegotiate it over the next couple of weeks, and they won't. At no stage in proceedings have the EU done anything they said explicitly that they wouldn't do. They won't start now.
And while it requires more actual work to implement, we just said we won't no deal.
No we didn't. Parliament said that. For better or worse they are not the same thing.
I don't understand your point. What Parliament decides to do on our behalf will be what matters.
No. Until they vote 'for' something they are just whistling in the wind. Once the EU decide to grant no further extensions, Parliament must vote to either accept the deal or revoke. Voting to refute a No Deal is like voting to refute gravity.
The EU voting to grant no further extensions is voting to enforce no deal. Its not going to happen realistically.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
Realistically countries know that they will be great disruption if there is an immediate and unplanned No Deal. The idea yesterday's vote changed anything is absurd, the EU have known for months if not years that we weren't planning for No Deal and it wouldn't happen.
Nobody realistically wants to trigger a crisis. And if (say) Slovenia tries to play silly buggers, the rest of the EU will behind the scenes place immense pressure on them to not do so.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
I understand . I was trying to think myself into the mindset of a leaver who keeps voting against actually leaving .
The EU voting to grant no further extensions is voting to enforce no deal. Its not going to happen realistically.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
Realistically countries know that they will be great disruption if there is an immediate and unplanned No Deal. The idea yesterday's vote changed anything is absurd, the EU have known for months if not years that we weren't planning for No Deal and it wouldn't happen.
Nobody realistically wants to trigger a crisis. And if (say) Slovenia tries to play silly buggers, the rest of the EU will behind the scenes place immense pressure on them to not do so.
You're probably right. But I think it's really strange that you don't trust the EU one inch when it comes to the backstop, but on the issue of extensions, you're prepared to handwave and say "oh, they'll be sensible, act in everyone's best interests, and realistically everything will be fine and work out."
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
It's a possibility, and one of the reasons that an extension can't be guaranteed at any state.
However, there are some strong reasons to think this won't happen: 1) No Deal (if it came to that) hurts citizens and businesses from every country, and there's a non-zero risk that it would create a cascading economic crisis that could hurt the whole of the EU 2) Crisis meetings of national leaders have quite strong peer pressure. They only usually hold out against a general consensus if they need to do that to avoid worse trouble at home 3) You never know when you'll be on the other end of a crisis and need help from everyone else, and people have long memories
Also if it came down to one or two countries being unreasonable, I think people would have a bit of patience with a fake revoke - ie TMay could formally say she was revoking, while telling everyone brexit was still on.
The EU voting to grant no further extensions is voting to enforce no deal. Its not going to happen realistically.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
Realistically countries know that they will be great disruption if there is an immediate and unplanned No Deal. The idea yesterday's vote changed anything is absurd, the EU have known for months if not years that we weren't planning for No Deal and it wouldn't happen.
Nobody realistically wants to trigger a crisis. And if (say) Slovenia tries to play silly buggers, the rest of the EU will behind the scenes place immense pressure on them to not do so.
You're probably right. But I think it's really strange that you don't trust the EU one inch when it comes to the backstop, but on the issue of extensions, you're prepared to handwave and say "oh, they'll be sensible, act in everyone's best interests, and realistically everything will be fine and work out."
Because the two are completely different. On the backstop if the EU are selfish they will be able to use the backstop against us. On an extension if the EU are selfish they will seek to avoid an unnecessary crisis. I expect the EU to look after their own self interest.
Furthermore to me the backstop is a matter of principle. Even if I trusted the EU (I don't) I still would not sign it.
Attacker live streamed the whole thing. Warning very explicit
Removed - and I understand why - but someone on Twitter called "real Jack Dawkins" currently has it - I'll not link to it - if you want to see it you'll have to search for yourself. And probably wish that you hadn't. The death toll looks to be a long way north of the 9 initially claimed. Also reports that one gunman is dead.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
It's a possibility, and one of the reasons that an extension can't be guaranteed at any state.
However, there are some strong reasons to think this won't happen: 1) No Deal (if it came to that) hurts citizens and businesses from every country, and there's a non-zero risk that it would create a cascading economic crisis that could hurt the whole of the EU 2) Crisis meetings of national leaders have quite strong peer pressure. They only usually hold out against a general consensus if they need to do that to avoid worse trouble at home 3) You never know when you'll be on the other end of a crisis and need help from everyone else, and people have long memories
Also if it came down to one or two countries being unreasonable, I think people would have a bit of patience with a fake revoke - ie TMay could formally say she was revoking, while telling everyone brexit was still on.
Were the next vote not to go May’s way I suspect a couple of countries vetoing an extension to force revolution may be the Governments desired approach.
After all the only thing we know is that no one wants the blame for the end result
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
It's a possibility, and one of the reasons that an extension can't be guaranteed at any state.
However, there are some strong reasons to think this won't happen: 1) No Deal (if it came to that) hurts citizens and businesses from every country, and there's a non-zero risk that it would create a cascading economic crisis that could hurt the whole of the EU 2) Crisis meetings of national leaders have quite strong peer pressure. They only usually hold out against a general consensus if they need to do that to avoid worse trouble at home 3) You never know when you'll be on the other end of a crisis and need help from everyone else, and people have long memories
Also if it came down to one or two countries being unreasonable, I think people would have a bit of patience with a fake revoke - ie TMay could formally say she was revoking, while telling everyone brexit was still on.
Were the next vote not to go May’s way I suspect a couple of countries vetoing an extension to force revolution may be the Governments desired approach.
After all the only thing we know is that no one wants the blame for the end result
I'm increasingly convinced that this where things end up in 10 days or so; no agreed extension, and a binary choice of revoke vs no deal.
Hypothetically, why shouldn't (say) Slovenia decide that they can leverage their ability to bring about No Deal, in exchange for whatever Slovenia currently wants out of the EU? What happens of three or four countries try this?
It's a possibility, and one of the reasons that an extension can't be guaranteed at any state.
However, there are some strong reasons to think this won't happen: 1) No Deal (if it came to that) hurts citizens and businesses from every country, and there's a non-zero risk that it would create a cascading economic crisis that could hurt the whole of the EU 2) Crisis meetings of national leaders have quite strong peer pressure. They only usually hold out against a general consensus if they need to do that to avoid worse trouble at home 3) You never know when you'll be on the other end of a crisis and need help from everyone else, and people have long memories
Also if it came down to one or two countries being unreasonable, I think people would have a bit of patience with a fake revoke - ie TMay could formally say she was revoking, while telling everyone brexit was still on.
Were the next vote not to go May’s way I suspect a couple of countries vetoing an extension to force revolution may be the Governments desired approach.
After all the only thing we know is that no one wants the blame for the end result
I'm increasingly convinced that this where things end up in 10 days or so; no agreed extension, and a binary choice of revoke vs no deal.
I don't know what happens in that vote.
That passes things back to MPs - I suspect they would find a way to say neither or force someone else to make the final decision
Please do not directly link to extremely graphic videos, thanks.
My apologies.
Twitter and Facebook shouldn't allow videos like that to be posted. They must have the technology to prevent it, but their stupid American free speech laws probably mean they won't do anything about it.
Please do not directly link to extremely graphic videos, thanks.
My apologies.
Twitter and Facebook shouldn't allow videos like that to be posted. They must have the technology to prevent it, but their stupid American free speech laws probably mean they won't do anything about it.
YouTube took it down quite promptly and Twitter forced the deletion of the one I mentioned. Its difficult for Facebook when the perpetrator 'Live Streams' it.
I don't think you get extension vetoed for two reasons
1) No deal is really bad for everyone 2) Nobody wants the blame for it
The EU will not make the decision for the UK, we will be forced to make it for ourselves.
Just how bad is no deal for Latvia, Slovakia or Malta among others ?
The Baltic states in particular must be heartily sick of it consuming the attention of the EU. If I was the president of Latvia, would I really want to drag this thing out for months or years longer rather than focus on things that actually mattered to me ?
I'd be tempted to say, "stay or go, but decide now", this ongoing omishambles isn't in their interests.
Please do not directly link to extremely graphic videos, thanks.
My apologies.
Twitter and Facebook shouldn't allow videos like that to be posted. They must have the technology to prevent it, but their stupid American free speech laws probably mean they won't do anything about it.
Not sure how you prevent it, the sheer volume of content being added daily is staggering. What kind of tech solution do you think they have?
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
I don't think you get extension vetoed for two reasons
1) No deal is really bad for everyone 2) Nobody wants the blame for it
The EU will not make the decision for the UK, we will be forced to make it for ourselves.
If I was the president of Latvia, would I really want to drag this thing out for months or years longer rather than focus on things that actually mattered to me ?
Oh, I think staying on good terms with one of Europe's two effective military powers, and most robust critic of Putin might be reasonably high on my agenda.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
Civil War it is then.
Is that a prediction or a threat?
Not the first time we've seen these kind of "predictions" from Hard Brexiters. Lisa Nandy's statement yesterday seemed to contain a lot of fear of such a scenario.
There seems to be rather a lot of men frightening rather a lot of women with it.
BERLIN (Reuters) - A vote by Britain’s parliament to seek to delay when it leaves the European Union only adds uncertainty about timing to an already difficult situation, Germany’s DIHK industry group said in comments published by German media on Friday.
“The companies no longer have any idea what they should be preparing for,” Martin Wansleben, executive director of the DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce, told the Funke Mediengruppe newspaper chain.
“In addition to uncertainty about what is going to happen, now there’s uncertainty about when it will happen,” he said.
I don't think you get extension vetoed for two reasons
1) No deal is really bad for everyone 2) Nobody wants the blame for it
The EU will not make the decision for the UK, we will be forced to make it for ourselves.
Just how bad is no deal for Latvia, Slovakia or Malta among others ?
The Baltic states in particular must be heartily sick of it consuming the attention of the EU. If I was the president of Latvia, would I really want to drag this thing out for months or years longer rather than focus on things that actually mattered to me ?
I'd be tempted to say, "stay or go, but decide now", this ongoing omishambles isn't in their interests.
The EU doles out money (and many other things), this is often done by formula but if you cause a no deal to happen and are to blame for many of the knock on effects in places like Ireland, France and Holland then you are going to suffer for it.
As much as any individual country might be annoyed at Britain the pain of turning many countries in the EU against you isn't worth removing that temporary pain.
One of the interesting things about this is (as a lay observer) is that the MCAS system allegedly applies a 'hard' trim setting - one pilots would not normally use. In other words the setting is rather aggressive. There might be good reasons for this in emergencies, but it looks as though it didn't help at least one of these flights ...
Also, MCAS might have operated with good reason: e.g. a plane incorrectly configures for takeoff,or if it became unbalanced due to shifting load in flight (probably not the latter with passengers on board). Therefore finding such wreckage is indicative, but even then MCAS might not be a causal factor.
IT is surely now obvious to Tory Brexiteers that defeating Theresa May’s deal again will be a disastrous act of self-harm.
Some are waking up to it. Too many are holding out for something better.
It’s not coming.
Mrs May’s shock victories last night leave her battered agreement as still somehow the only viable option, even if she has been humiliatingly reduced to asking the EU for a short delay.
Kill it again next week and that’s it.
The PM will be ordered to beg a long delay, swallowing any conditions Brussels wants to impose.
Remainer MPs will take back control, as they failed to do last night by only two votes, and Tory support will collapse.
I can't see any situation that parliament will agree on in without massive time pressures, either in the short- or longer- terms. And once those time pressures are off, there will be just more chaos.
Let's revoke this whole ghastly mess and start addressing the real issues that face the country. And the EU isn't one of them.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
I can't see any situation that parliament will agree on in without massive time pressures, either in the short- or longer- terms. And once those time pressures are off, there will be just more chaos.
Let's revoke this whole ghastly mess and start addressing the real issues that face the country. And the EU isn't one of them.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
The sensible compromise is clear: soft Brexit. It is variously codenamed common market 2.0, or Norway, or customs union, or EEA. Under it, Britain leaves the EU but remains in Europe’s wider economic zone. Such an off-the-shelf package is known to be acceptable to Brussels. It respects the pleas of industry and commerce not to wreck Britain’s continental trade for pie-in-the-sky “deals with the rest of the world”.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
I can't see any situation that parliament will agree on in without massive time pressures, either in the short- or longer- terms. And once those time pressures are off, there will be just more chaos.
Let's revoke this whole ghastly mess and start addressing the real issues that face the country. And the EU isn't one of them.
That is certainly an option; but I cannot see that resolving anything, especially give our disfunctioning parliament. Although the squeals from the Brexiteers who got us into this mess will be loud and, if Tyndall's 'prophecies' are correct, violent.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
The sensible compromise is clear: soft Brexit. It is variously codenamed common market 2.0, or Norway, or customs union, or EEA. Under it, Britain leaves the EU but remains in Europe’s wider economic zone. Such an off-the-shelf package is known to be acceptable to Brussels. It respects the pleas of industry and commerce not to wreck Britain’s continental trade for pie-in-the-sky “deals with the rest of the world”.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
"which can easily be revisited once we have left."
IT is surely now obvious to Tory Brexiteers that defeating Theresa May’s deal again will be a disastrous act of self-harm.
Some are waking up to it. Too many are holding out for something better.
It’s not coming.
Mrs May’s shock victories last night leave her battered agreement as still somehow the only viable option, even if she has been humiliatingly reduced to asking the EU for a short delay.
Kill it again next week and that’s it.
The PM will be ordered to beg a long delay, swallowing any conditions Brussels wants to impose.
Remainer MPs will take back control, as they failed to do last night by only two votes, and Tory support will collapse.
Will even the most Bone-headed ERG members get it?
If there is indeed an MV3 it could only pass with some Labour votes. Right now the government should be putting energy into courting them. If it is, it’s invisible.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
The sensible compromise is clear: soft Brexit. It is variously codenamed common market 2.0, or Norway, or customs union, or EEA. Under it, Britain leaves the EU but remains in Europe’s wider economic zone. Such an off-the-shelf package is known to be acceptable to Brussels. It respects the pleas of industry and commerce not to wreck Britain’s continental trade for pie-in-the-sky “deals with the rest of the world”.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
"which can easily be revisited once we have left."
Really?
You think they'll object to us pivoting to a softer Brexit and restoring FoM (which is what it will mean, despite Magic Grandpa's obfuscations)?
Geoffrey Cox's bid to break Brexit deal deadlock rejected by eurosceptic lawyers
Theresa May's hopes of securing Commons backing for her Brexit deal have been dealt a blow after a team of eurosceptic lawyers rejected Geoffrey Cox's latest attempt to end the impasse.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
The sensible compromise is clear: soft Brexit. It is variously codenamed common market 2.0, or Norway, or customs union, or EEA. Under it, Britain leaves the EU but remains in Europe’s wider economic zone. Such an off-the-shelf package is known to be acceptable to Brussels. It respects the pleas of industry and commerce not to wreck Britain’s continental trade for pie-in-the-sky “deals with the rest of the world”.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
"which can easily be revisited once we have left."
Really?
You think they'll object to us pivoting to a softer Brexit and restoring FoM (which is what it will mean, despite Magic Grandpa's obfuscations)?
I think they're pissed off with us - and rightly so.
Brexit is a national embarrassment. It has turned us into an international laughing stock. given our chaotic behaviour, we have not right to expect anything from the other parties involved.
Why should they agree to anything we ask, when we can't even agree amongst ourselves? They know that we'll just change our minds down the road.
IT is surely now obvious to Tory Brexiteers that defeating Theresa May’s deal again will be a disastrous act of self-harm.
Some are waking up to it. Too many are holding out for something better.
It’s not coming.
Mrs May’s shock victories last night leave her battered agreement as still somehow the only viable option, even if she has been humiliatingly reduced to asking the EU for a short delay.
Kill it again next week and that’s it.
The PM will be ordered to beg a long delay, swallowing any conditions Brussels wants to impose.
Remainer MPs will take back control, as they failed to do last night by only two votes, and Tory support will collapse.
Will even the most Bone-headed ERG members get it?
If there is indeed an MV3 it could only pass with some Labour votes. Right now the government should be putting energy into courting them. If it is, it’s invisible.
The six Labour MPs who voted the Benn amendment down can probably be relied upon.
IT is surely now obvious to Tory Brexiteers that defeating Theresa May’s deal again will be a disastrous act of self-harm.
Some are waking up to it. Too many are holding out for something better.
It’s not coming.
Mrs May’s shock victories last night leave her battered agreement as still somehow the only viable option, even if she has been humiliatingly reduced to asking the EU for a short delay.
Kill it again next week and that’s it.
The PM will be ordered to beg a long delay, swallowing any conditions Brussels wants to impose.
Remainer MPs will take back control, as they failed to do last night by only two votes, and Tory support will collapse.
Will even the most Bone-headed ERG members get it?
If there is indeed an MV3 it could only pass with some Labour votes. Right now the government should be putting energy into courting them. If it is, it’s invisible.
Earlier in the week, Radio 5 had an interview with a Labour backbencher MP. I forget her name (she was not one who is commonly on the media), but the interview was delayed because she had been asked to go and see the PM.
During the interview, she refused to say what had been discussed, aside from the fact t was about Brexit.
So perhaps she has been putting energy into courting them - although it seems a vainglorious attempt whilst her own party is so divided.
The sensible compromise is clear: soft Brexit. It is variously codenamed common market 2.0, or Norway, or customs union, or EEA. Under it, Britain leaves the EU but remains in Europe’s wider economic zone. Such an off-the-shelf package is known to be acceptable to Brussels. It respects the pleas of industry and commerce not to wreck Britain’s continental trade for pie-in-the-sky “deals with the rest of the world”.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
"which can easily be revisited once we have left."
Really?
You think they'll object to us pivoting to a softer Brexit and restoring FoM (which is what it will mean, despite Magic Grandpa's obfuscations)?
I think they're pissed off with us - and rightly so.
Brexit is a national embarrassment. It has turned us into an international laughing stock. given our chaotic behaviour, we have not right to expect anything from the other parties involved.
Why should they agree to anything we ask, when we can't even agree amongst ourselves? They know that we'll just change our minds down the road.
We're Little Britain, thanks to the Brexiteers.
The EU has refused to negotiate our future relationship until we have left.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
The EU has refused to negotiate our future relationship until we have left.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
It isn't working. It really isn't.
"Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?"
I wrote a section earlier and then deleted it, stating how history might show May with some credit in this mess. It's not her mess, whatever PB's self-proclaimed master negotiators say. She's tried damned hard to get a deal (which many on here said she wouldn't get) - and one that is acceptable to many leavers on here. She's tried to sell it.
The problem is that parliament is not functioning; it has utterly broken down. Too few are willing to make the compromises a working democracy requires.
The EU has refused to negotiate our future relationship until we have left.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
It isn't working. It really isn't.
"Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?"
I wrote a section earlier and then deleted it, stating how history might show May with some credit in this mess. It's not her mess, whatever PB's self-proclaimed master negotiators say. She's tried damned hard to get a deal (which many on here said she wouldn't get) - and one that is acceptable to many leavers on here. She's tried to sell it.
The problem is that parliament is not functioning; it has utterly broken down. Too few are willing to make the compromises a working democracy requires.
Parliament not functioning is due to a combination of
FTPA which can produce zombie governments Mays botched election scewing up the Parliamentary numbers
The FTPA has to go as it removes the sanction of losing power from government MPs so they can be as mad as a box of frogs and face no downside
May will also have to go as she cant lead a government post Brexit
The EU has refused to negotiate our future relationship until we have left.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
It isn't working. It really isn't.
"Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?"
I wrote a section earlier and then deleted it, stating how history might show May with some credit in this mess. It's not her mess, whatever PB's self-proclaimed master negotiators say. She's tried damned hard to get a deal (which many on here said she wouldn't get) - and one that is acceptable to many leavers on here. She's tried to sell it.
The problem is that parliament is not functioning; it has utterly broken down. Too few are willing to make the compromises a working democracy requires.
Surely her first crucial error was to treat this Brexit solely as a party political matter and secondly to go for the 2017 election on the basis that she could then use the resulting Tory majority to steamroller objections. However, we are now where we are. IMHO the EU leadership has been extremely patient and forbearing, especially as it has a duty to protect Ireland's interests.
The EU has refused to negotiate our future relationship until we have left.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
It isn't working. It really isn't.
"Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?"
I wrote a section earlier and then deleted it, stating how history might show May with some credit in this mess. It's not her mess, whatever PB's self-proclaimed master negotiators say. She's tried damned hard to get a deal (which many on here said she wouldn't get) - and one that is acceptable to many leavers on here. She's tried to sell it.
The problem is that parliament is not functioning; it has utterly broken down. Too few are willing to make the compromises a working democracy requires.
Surely her first crucial error was to treat this Brexit solely as a party political matter and secondly to go for the 2017 election on the basis that she could then use the resulting Tory majority to steamroller objections. However, we are now where we are. IMHO the EU leadership has been extremely patient and forbearing, especially as it has a duty to protect Ireland's interests.
If May has failed so has the EU neither is getting a deal over the line.
I see that even on UKIP Home, support for the WA has doubled to 40%. It seems that some people are starting to think "Gosh, I never realised that voting against Brexit could stop Brexit from happening."
We leave on March 29, it's the law became a mantra. Repeated endlessly until absorbed in the heart. That the law can be changed, even on matters of religious faith, seems to be a surprise .
It is not that it is the law. It is that it is part of a treaty we signed up to under Gordon Brown and over which we have no power. There is no 'law' to change. If we do not come up with an alternative - a deal, revoke or extend - then we will be leaving no matter how many laws we pass.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Portillo said on This Week he expects the Commons to narrowly vote to revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit if no extension granted
I can't believe an Australian senator has actually posted those comments on Twitter. Unbelievable.
Do they not have a requirement that their legislators be sane in Oz?
Not that it's doing us a huge amount of good at the moment, but I still can't imagine even a Kipper being mad enough to post that on Twitter (although it may just be I have as much imagination as a Frenchman).
Comments
For the record, yep I voted leave and I'm also on record as having a problem with the ideologues within the ERG and not being keen on the Mogg so I'm not exactly in the hard core movement.
1: May needs to realise her time is up. She's tried her best, she needs to look for a dignified exit.
2: May should say if there's a deal she will see it through then retire, if there's no deal she will request a long extension and retire and let her successor continue negotiations.
3: May should travel around Europe in the next few days and say this is the last chance saloon to get anything through.
4: May should point out to the EU and Ireland that her successor as PM will be elected by Tory MPs (who overwhelmingly opposed extension and still back Brexit) and by Tory members. The next PM will not be the likes of Soubry, Cooper or Starmer nor will be chosen by them either.
5: May should try and negotiate a solution that satisfies Cox and Dodds and then have a final MV3 after any new negotiations.
6a: If a deal, great, lets move on.
6b: If there's no deal, extend and have an immediate and full Tory leadership contest.
We will need to have European elections and its awkward I don't know if a Tory leadership contest could be completed before that.
HIGGINS, John Robert (Labour) 458
SIMPSON, Edwin Herbert (Liberal Democrat) 163
MILES, Stephen Joseph (North East Party) 74
FRY, Gareth David Anthony (For Britain) 20
Labour hold
turnout 24.2%
True enough Brexiteer to have more credibility with Brexiteers. Stayed loyal to May to not have pissed off Remainers. One of the faces of the Brexit campaign. Not Boris.
Problem is, Tory Brexiteer and DUP interests aren't aligned, despite both supporting Brexit.
If May resigns the Tories have a leadership contest. If May doesn't resign she'll probably face a VONC and a leadership contest before any new referendum or anything else could occur, especially if a long extension has already been granted so there's time to replace her. Ultimately we can say what we plan to use the time for, but they have a say of granting or not granting the time, once its granted that's it there's no takebacks. And if they don't grant an extension then that throws Ireland under the bus with an immediate hard border.
Lab 1379
Con 324
Ind 162
Green 91
Ind 72
LibDem 70
UKIP 40
A poll I saw of Labour members the other day showed most wanted a general election above other options. The media pointing out most Labour members voted remain isn't the same thing as them all screaming at Corbyn to do something and him refusing to do it.
It has been much the same as before where MPs with no interest in the members have been damaging the Labour party and the cause of a second referendum against the will of the members. Much to the delight of non Labour members or the small minority of Labour members who don't like Corbyn but definitely not representative of Labour members.
If Corbyn didn't represent the Labour members they would want to replace him, the problem people have with Corbyn is that he does represent the Labour members.
If he ignored the members and went back to deeply unpopular Blairite ideas then people would have less of a problem with him, Labour members want to win elections and change things though.
It is sad that this late in the day this still has to be explained. Voting to reject No Deal achieves nothing. We have now perhaps got a temporary respite if the EU deign to agree an extension but otherwise we accept the deal or we revoke. They are the only ways to avoid No Deal.
Also, never underestimate the power of loyalty to the outgoing leader in a Tory leadership contest. While I don’t doubt they’re ready for a change and ardently Eurosceptic, I reckon most Tory members would say TM did what she could, and probably won’t thank those who’ve harmed her. Which gives Gove, Hunt and Javid a start against Bojo etc, if not a slam dunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbury_and_Pollards_Hill_(ward)
"Taking back control" has become prostrating ourselves before 27 countries and begging them to save us from the consequences of our own folly.
They have a choice whether to grant an extension or not.
They have no choice on what we do after an extension has been granted.
May could go to the Council and say we need a long extension, I am changing my red lines.
May could go to the Council and say we need a long extension, Parliament is going to vote for a second referendum.
Whatever May says is meaningless. She doesn't carry Parliament. The second they approve an extension its done, May could be ousted and we could get a new PM in who puts in their own red lines or whatever.
May said the UK would ratify this deal last November. We haven't. However the Council votes on an extension has no bearing on what we do afterwards.
Nobody realistically wants to trigger a crisis. And if (say) Slovenia tries to play silly buggers, the rest of the EU will behind the scenes place immense pressure on them to not do so.
However, there are some strong reasons to think this won't happen:
1) No Deal (if it came to that) hurts citizens and businesses from every country, and there's a non-zero risk that it would create a cascading economic crisis that could hurt the whole of the EU
2) Crisis meetings of national leaders have quite strong peer pressure. They only usually hold out against a general consensus if they need to do that to avoid worse trouble at home
3) You never know when you'll be on the other end of a crisis and need help from everyone else, and people have long memories
Also if it came down to one or two countries being unreasonable, I think people would have a bit of patience with a fake revoke - ie TMay could formally say she was revoking, while telling everyone brexit was still on.
Furthermore to me the backstop is a matter of principle. Even if I trusted the EU (I don't) I still would not sign it.
One attackers is Australian neo nazi who left 37 page manifesto.
Grim
Attacker live streamed the whole thing. Warning very explicit
After all the only thing we know is that no one wants the blame for the end result
I don't know what happens in that vote.
1) No deal is really bad for everyone
2) Nobody wants the blame for it
The EU will not make the decision for the UK, we will be forced to make it for ourselves.
https://deadline.com/2019/03/beto-orourke-jimmy-fallon-hands-donald-trump-announcement-video-1202576317/
The Baltic states in particular must be heartily sick of it consuming the attention of the EU. If I was the president of Latvia, would I really want to drag this thing out for months or years longer rather than focus on things that actually mattered to me ?
I'd be tempted to say, "stay or go, but decide now", this ongoing omishambles isn't in their interests.
There seems to be rather a lot of men frightening rather a lot of women with it.
“The companies no longer have any idea what they should be preparing for,” Martin Wansleben, executive director of the DIHK Chambers of Industry and Commerce, told the Funke Mediengruppe newspaper chain.
“In addition to uncertainty about what is going to happen, now there’s uncertainty about when it will happen,” he said.
https://twitter.com/ReutersUK/status/1106421572867366912
As much as any individual country might be annoyed at Britain the pain of turning many countries in the EU against you isn't worth removing that temporary pain.
Also, MCAS might have operated with good reason: e.g. a plane incorrectly configures for takeoff,or if it became unbalanced due to shifting load in flight (probably not the latter with passengers on board). Therefore finding such wreckage is indicative, but even then MCAS might not be a causal factor.
(IANAE, the above as from other sites).
IT is surely now obvious to Tory Brexiteers that defeating Theresa May’s deal again will be a disastrous act of self-harm.
Some are waking up to it. Too many are holding out for something better.
It’s not coming.
Mrs May’s shock victories last night leave her battered agreement as still somehow the only viable option, even if she has been humiliatingly reduced to asking the EU for a short delay.
Kill it again next week and that’s it.
The PM will be ordered to beg a long delay, swallowing any conditions Brussels wants to impose.
Remainer MPs will take back control, as they failed to do last night by only two votes, and Tory support will collapse.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8641594/theresa-may-brexit-deal-self-harm/
Will even the most Bone-headed ERG members get it?
I can't see any situation that parliament will agree on in without massive time pressures, either in the short- or longer- terms. And once those time pressures are off, there will be just more chaos.
Let's revoke this whole ghastly mess and start addressing the real issues that face the country. And the EU isn't one of them.
It is no longer only May and her deal that are on trial. So too is the House of Commons, and whether it is any longer a useful adjunct to responsible government. When Britain is out of this mess, parliament must reform. It should use its impending exile from the Palace of Westminster to galvanise its future as a legislature. It should leave London for a while and immerse itself in the provinces. It should find a voting system that better reflects popular opinion. The bloated House of Lords should be replaced. A fairer balance is needed between England and the UK’s other nations.
Only then will this farrago have served some purpose. As it is, Britain must this weekend await enough MPs with the guts to cross the bridge of compromise. Nothing else will do.
Possibly so.
But whats that got to do with the WA?
It's a matter for the "Political Declaration" which can easily be revisited once we have left.
If even someone like Jenkins is as clueless on this, why are we surprised MPs are too?
Sometimes a fresh start is best.
Really?
Theresa May's hopes of securing Commons backing for her Brexit deal have been dealt a blow after a team of eurosceptic lawyers rejected Geoffrey Cox's latest attempt to end the impasse.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/102536/geoffrey-coxs-bid-break-brexit-deal-deadlock-rejected
Brexit is a national embarrassment. It has turned us into an international laughing stock. given our chaotic behaviour, we have not right to expect anything from the other parties involved.
Why should they agree to anything we ask, when we can't even agree amongst ourselves? They know that we'll just change our minds down the road.
We're Little Britain, thanks to the Brexiteers.
During the interview, she refused to say what had been discussed, aside from the fact t was about Brexit.
So perhaps she has been putting energy into courting them - although it seems a vainglorious attempt whilst her own party is so divided.
Mrs May's 'red lines' are about that future relationship - which hasn't been negotiated yet.
Simon Jenkins suggestions are about the future relationship and have nothing to do with the Withdrawal Agreement - which is about settling accounts, creating a transition phase to negotiate that future relationship, AND a 'Backstop' necessitated by the EU's refusal to negotiate a future relationship before we've left - which may well sink the whole deal.
Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?
Its not pretty, but, after a fashion, its working - this is a feature, not a bug.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/beto-orourke-cover-story?verso=true
Top 3 issues according to voters
- raise pensions
- reduce VAT
- raise the minimum wage
that has the potential for disappointing a lot of people/
Bloody French. No imagination.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/seth-meyers-rips-beto-orourkes-presidential-announcement-that-was-fucking-weird?via=twitter_page
https://twitter.com/fraser_anning/status/1106432499704451072
"Much as foreign commentators and politicians like to point and laugh, how many of their heads of government have been on their feet for 19 hours in recent weeks putting their case to the legislature?"
I wrote a section earlier and then deleted it, stating how history might show May with some credit in this mess. It's not her mess, whatever PB's self-proclaimed master negotiators say. She's tried damned hard to get a deal (which many on here said she wouldn't get) - and one that is acceptable to many leavers on here. She's tried to sell it.
The problem is that parliament is not functioning; it has utterly broken down. Too few are willing to make the compromises a working democracy requires.
FTPA which can produce zombie governments
Mays botched election scewing up the Parliamentary numbers
The FTPA has to go as it removes the sanction of losing power from government MPs so they can be as mad as a box of frogs and face no downside
May will also have to go as she cant lead a government post Brexit
However, we are now where we are.
IMHO the EU leadership has been extremely patient and forbearing, especially as it has a duty to protect Ireland's interests.
Not that it's doing us a huge amount of good at the moment, but I still can't imagine even a Kipper being mad enough to post that on Twitter (although it may just be I have as much imagination as a Frenchman).
It's absolutely incredible.