Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Jambo-Jimbo]

33 minutes ago, Victorian said:

That ****ing horror show Leadsom still going on about the EU revisiting the withdrawal agreement.     

 

Yeah... that's really helpful cheers.    Maybe concentrate on the job at hand rather than posture for the upcoming leadership contest.     

 

She also said that she'd heard that senior German officials had, it was rumoured, said that the WA could be opened up again.

This was why she was asking the PM to ask Merkel if the WA could be opened and that is also why the EU has reiterated that it isn't going to be.

One of Sky's correspondents in Brussels seemed to back up Leadsom by saying that there was some rumours floating about at the week-end.

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

 

This is a useful concept to keep in mind. Extreme rightists, through the media, have pushed this window so far to the right for the vast majority of people in both the US and the UK that what people consider "extreme" from Labour would have been centrist/slight rightist four decades ago. And what people now consider "run of the mill" from the Tories is indeed well right even of Thatcher.

 

Yes, that's the fella.

 

The political spectrum, for want of a phrase, needs reset.

[Boris]

10 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

I agree Boris but it is still dangerous

 

Justins link to the Overton window I think explains it. Corbyn isn't a Marxist. He's left of centre, but portrayed as a bogeyman.

 

Less dangerous than the ERG, IMO. Although I doubt that surprises!

[Notts1874]

7 minutes ago, Barack said:

Is he just annoyed because he's got a foreign sounding surname? 

 

Hope his parents voted Remain.

 

 

He's annoyed at everything. The EU, our Parliament, The Tory party etc etc..

 

 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, Barack said:

Aye, he does come across as if there's something the matter with him. Haemorrhoids I'd guess.

Immigrant haemorrhoids.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

I never thought I'd say May winning an MP vote by a big majority would be a hopeful sign but here we are. I'm hoping that winning a vote that split her party with majority opposition support feels good to her, and that she decides she might like to do it again, rather than try not to split the party and lose and lose and lose and lose.

 

This will bring Brexit closer to actually happening which I think is unfortunate but a sane Brexit is surely better than the endless brinkmanship. And maybe it keeps the Tories from being taken over by the cruelest wing of its party, like has happened in the US with the GOP, which has been horrifying.

[Victorian]

I still think that an agreement will eventually be stuck together to pass the WA with an amended PD.     A transition period will be secured and the immediate urgency will diminish.    If it's legally binding element remains unchanged then the PD will likely be devoured be the right wing of the Tory party and we end up already out of the EU and heading for a distant relationship from the EU institutions.     If the PD somehow becomes legally binding in areas and we 'sign up' for anything that affects an independent trade policy,    the right wing will keep on trying to revisit whatever treaties exist in order to have a purist Brexit.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

I still think that an agreement will eventually be stuck together to pass the WA with an amended PD.     A transition period will be secured and the immediate urgency will diminish.    If it's legally binding element remains unchanged then the PD will likely be devoured be the right wing of the Tory party and we end up already out of the EU and heading for a distant relationship from the EU institutions.     If the PD somehow becomes legally binding in areas and we 'sign up' for anything that affects an independent trade policy,    the right wing will keep on trying to revisit whatever treaties exist in order to have a purist Brexit.

 

It's a tricky one.

 

People talking of a Labour deal being changed by say Boris Johnson. But if EU agree political declaration they can just stick in it. 

[Francis Albert]

And so we go on. Has anyone actually read the Good Friday Agreement? Where does it say customs posts on the NI/ROI border would breach the agreement? Where does it guarantee free movement between NI and the ROI? It does neither.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Victorian said:

I still think that an agreement will eventually be stuck together to pass the WA with an amended PD.     A transition period will be secured and the immediate urgency will diminish.    If it's legally binding element remains unchanged then the PD will likely be devoured be the right wing of the Tory party and we end up already out of the EU and heading for a distant relationship from the EU institutions.     If the PD somehow becomes legally binding in areas and we 'sign up' for anything that affects an independent trade policy,    the right wing will keep on trying to revisit whatever treaties exist in order to have a purist Brexit.

The "right wing"/ERG of the Tory Party is a fringe group. Why do people give it so much credence? Its strength lies only In so many in Labour and Tory parties willingness (eagerness) to obstruct Leave.

[doctor jambo]

23 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And so we go on. Has anyone actually read the Good Friday Agreement? Where does it say customs posts on the NI/ROI border would breach the agreement? Where does it guarantee free movement between NI and the ROI? It does neither.

It guarantees ni citizens the same right of free movement as the republic 

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

It guarantees ni citizens the same right of free movement as the republic 

Where?

It asserts the right to choose your place of residence, Which isn't the same as "free movement" whatever exactly that means. It certainly doesn't specify that NI and ROI citizens should have the same "right of free movement".

And there is nothing in it about "NI citizens" because such a thing doesn't exist.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Francis Albert

[hearts related nickname]

4 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Where?

It asserts the right to choose your place of residence, Which isn't the same as "free movement" whatever exactly that means. It certainly doesn't specify that NI and ROI citizens should have the same "right of free movement".

And there is nothing in it about "NI citizens" because such a thing doesn't exist.

 

Aware I'm not directly answering your question but on the topic of the good Friday agreement. 

Whether or not a border is in violation of the GFA, it is the symbolism of having a border being in violation of the spirit of it more than anything. Borders imply division and separation between people's and in such a delicate context I think it's of the utmost priority that nothing happens to fan any embers. A hard border or soft border or anyway that inhibits movement of people's from north to republic is dangerous and runs the risk of starting violence again.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

And so we go on. Has anyone actually read the Good Friday Agreement? Where does it say customs posts on the NI/ROI border would breach the agreement? Where does it guarantee free movement between NI and the ROI? It does neither.

 

The text does not directly say this. The text does effectively devolve all cross-border issues to the new democratic bodies created in the GFA. This does not mandate an open border, but on the other hand implementing a hard border by fiat from London would violate the agreement.

 

If the Councils so decided, they could implement a hard border, but by the terms of the GFA this is something that neither May nor the Westminster Parliament has the right to negotiate on, and therefore it cannot be negotiated as part of a UK/EU agreement.

 

Hence the proposed Irish Sea hard border, which of course the DUP see (with some reason) as Step 1 to a united Ireland and a departure of NI from the UK.

[eddiepolio]

Can't believe nobody has highlighted the Duty free situation in Ireland post Brexit. Could be a game changer ???

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I here this phrase occasionally. I tend to argue that the political spectrum, has mored towards the right as part of a constant evolution our politics.

 

We we constantly evolve as human and our societies reflect that.  We learn certain things and change our positioning to take account of learning. In the main the centre has move towards the right but we have not become more right winged we have just compressed the middle ground.

 

For example, what’s more right wing the tories of today or 50. 100 years ago or today? The answer is 100 years ago.  They are way more liberal in pretty much every aspect of their thinking, policy or aims. 

 

Whilst socialists have undoubtably moved to the right as many see socialism not about economic principal, but more social system. Almost dropped the founding principal of state/central ownership economy. 

 

I would argue that the reason the centre has moved to the right is the ultimate success of capitalist economies over socialist economies (for clarity socialist economy which is essentially state ownership). They have constantly proved more successful at benefit its people. The problem is the system isn’t perfect and whilst it creates wealth it creates unequal and wealth tends to get very centred around a few. However, prices law is not unusual and happens in most aspects of life.

 

Now economies, with a few exceptions, are mixed and it’s about reaching the right balance. However, that balance towards capitalism and free markets,  has proven to continue to create overall wealth. 

 

Now we could argue, until the cows come hoke and I doubt we would agree at right balance point on where economy should sit. However, fundamentally capitalism will never eat it self, as society always needs to grow and that will be via capitalist elements of the economies.

 

 

 

 

Good summary that probably also encapsulates my own personal political development as well as societies. 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I here this phrase occasionally. I tend to argue that the political spectrum, has mored towards the right as part of a constant evolution our politics.

 

We we constantly evolve as human and our societies reflect that.  We learn certain things and change our positioning to take account of learning. In the main the centre has move towards the right but we have not become more right winged we have just compressed the middle ground.

 

For example, what’s more right wing the tories of today or 50. 100 years ago or today? The answer is 100 years ago.  They are way more liberal in pretty much every aspect of their thinking, policy or aims. 

 

Whilst socialists have undoubtably moved to the right as many see socialism not about economic principal, but more social system. Almost dropped the founding principal of state/central ownership economy. 

 

I would argue that the reason the centre has moved to the right is the ultimate success of capitalist economies over socialist economies (for clarity socialist economy which is essentially state ownership). They have constantly proved more successful at benefit its people. The problem is the system isn’t perfect and whilst it creates wealth it creates unequal and wealth tends to get very centred around a few. However, prices law is not unusual and happens in most aspects of life.

 

Now economies, with a few exceptions, are mixed and it’s about reaching the right balance. However, that balance towards capitalism and free markets,  has proven to continue to create overall wealth. 

 

Now we could argue, until the cows come hoke and I doubt we would agree at right balance point on where economy should sit. However, fundamentally capitalism will never eat it self, as society always needs to grow and that will be via capitalist elements of the economies.

 

 

I thin k that the move to the right is due to the neoliberal "consensus" if you like.  Thatcherism, Reaganomics, whatever you wish to call it, comes with associated political ideology, close to Ayn Randism in my book.  Libertarianism perhaps?

 

I'd argue that this form of capitalism IS eating itself.  I agree with you that there is a balance and that a mixed economy is the way to do it.  What the balance is, is the key, IMO. 

[AlimOzturk]

The EU and in particular Macron need to be careful in how they handle this extention situation. As the UK, if forced to withdraw article 50 due to ridiculous sanctions such as no voting rights or 3 monthly behaviour checks it COULD see a massive backlash. People might surge towards brexiteers and demand a no deal brexit or frustrate the EU running by voting no on key policies. 

 

It is the one thing I to think we have in our arsenal and if Macron does push it to far we could end up making the whole procccess bitter as ****

[Jambo-Jimbo]

21 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

The EU and in particular Macron need to be careful in how they handle this extention situation. As the UK, if forced to withdraw article 50 due to ridiculous sanctions such as no voting rights or 3 monthly behaviour checks it COULD see a massive backlash. People might surge towards brexiteers and demand a no deal brexit or frustrate the EU running by voting no on key policies. 

 

It is the one thing I to think we have in our arsenal and if Macron does push it to far we could end up making the whole procccess bitter as ****

 

Indeed, check up on the UK to make sure we are behaving ourselves, and if not do we get sent to the naughty corner.

 

We have seen a rise in anti EU sentiment and not just amongst brexiteers in previous occasions such as 'a special place in hell' or photo's of cakes with the caption 'what no cherries' amongst other things, so if the EU impose/dictate checks on the UK then I can see many people and not just amongst brexiteers saying 'who the feck do they think they are' and/or 'well feck them then, if that's the way they want to play it'.

 

As you quite rightly state Macron could be the problem here, he's desperate to appear the hard man, especially to a domestic audience who have mostly turned against him now.

 

[Victorian]

The EU wouldn't need to be mindful of UK disruptive behaviour if the Brexiteer rabble weren't shouting their mouths off about it.      Ironically,    their despicable rhetoric will ensure that the EU protects itself with safeguards,    which will in turn create more hostility towards them.

 

Tory Brexiteer scum like Francois,  Brigden and all the other hard Brexit lunatics are a total poison in our democracy.      

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

I’ve had to use google and Wikipedia, after this post. At least I have learned something today so that’s a positive, as I had no idea Ayn Randism was?

 

I guess we just don’t see it the same way.

 

Probably not, although I suspect we agree on more than we perhaps think.

 

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

On the radio today they were discussing how people who use term new liberalism should be red flagged. Made me think of you ?

 

I think I'll take that as a compliment!  Found this on Britannica, and appears Churchill was a "new liberal".  Who'd have thunk it?

 

https://www.britannica.com/topic/new-liberalism

 

3 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

anyway how you think this brexit thing all plays out?

 

 

I suspect that the ERG are beginning to shit themselves a wee bit hence the ramping up of the rhetoric/jingoism etc.  How this plays with the public will be interesting.

 

Ironically, they need an agreement to be signed off so that May will then walk and they can anoint BJ as fuhrer.

 

I don't think that talks with Labour will amount to much, and May's deal will not get through.  Which brings us back to indicative votes.  And Parliament seems rather gridlocked on this.

 

To me at least, it would make sense to have a second referendum, although not sure how pallatable that would be, but revoking article 50 is May's other nuclear option to put before the house.  Would it pass?  No idea.

 

This won't happen but what I'd like to see:

 

Revoke article 50.

Inquiry into 2016 referendum - e.g. Vote leave electoral transgressions etc, "fake news"/claims by both sides.

Second referendum - binding (so covered by electoral law) - different options?

cross party group set up to work out exit strategy.

Once agreed invoke article 50 and go to EU and take it from there.

 

 

 

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

The EU wouldn't need to be mindful of UK disruptive behaviour if the Brexiteer rabble weren't shouting their mouths off about it.      Ironically,    their despicable rhetoric will ensure that the EU protects itself with safeguards,    which will in turn create more hostility towards them.

 

Tory Brexiteer scum like Francois,  Brigden and all the other hard Brexit lunatics are a total poison in our democracy.      

Exactly, when twats like Reese-Mogg publicly agitate for vetoing the course of EU democracy if they don't get their way, it forces the EU to take precautions.

 

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, AlimOzturk said:

The EU and in particular Macron need to be careful in how they handle this extention situation. As the UK, if forced to withdraw article 50 due to ridiculous sanctions such as no voting rights or 3 monthly behaviour checks it COULD see a massive backlash. People might surge towards brexiteers and demand a no deal brexit or frustrate the EU running by voting no on key policies. 

 

It is the one thing I to think we have in our arsenal and if Macron does push it to far we could end up making the whole procccess bitter as ****

No dealers are a relatively small minority in Parliament 

[Victorian]

Tony Blair was talking yesterday about something I once thought was possible.    To properly and carefully sell the idea of why a second referendum is necessary,   justified and beneficial.     He's wrong,    as I was.       There is no way on earth the idea of another referendum can be sold.     The entire subject of Brexit and all it's associated democratic implications (both real and perceived) is utterly demented.     Pulled so far to the extremes (mainly on the pro-Brexit side) that if is beyond any reason.       

 

If there ever is another UK-EU referendum,    it will be after we have left the EU,   politically,   and the Brexit fundamentalists are trying to drag us ever further away.

[AlimOzturk]

43 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Exactly, when twats like Reese-Mogg publicly agitate for vetoing the course of EU democracy if they don't get their way, it forces the EU to take precautions.

 

 

Yep i agree with you the EU will need to take precautions. However I think the whole "UK is powerless" chat is nonsense. If we wanted to we could play the long game, become a complete and utter nightmare for the EU by vetoing EU legislation. This is why Tusk is calling for cool heads and allowing us more time as he knows a bitter UK could be a nightmare. 

 

Fwiw I am not suggesting we do the above. I think it would just completely damage relations in the long run and would harm everyone financially. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by AlimOzturk

[AlimOzturk]

43 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

No dealers are a relatively small minority in Parliament 

 

They are but I am saying if the EU play hardball with UK more and more people could flock to the brexiteers way of thinking. 

[Boris]

39 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

They are but I am saying if the EU play hardball with UK more and more people could flock to the brexiteers way of thinking. 

 

Which is why the ERG are coming out with this pish, IMO.  They sense Brexit slipping away so are trying to rig it and paint the EU as the bad guys.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Which is why the ERG are coming out with this pish, IMO.  They sense Brexit slipping away so are trying to rig it and paint the EU as the bad guys.

 

I think they have been painting the EEC/EC/EU as the bad guys for the last 40 years, so nothing new here.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

50 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

 

Yep i agree with you the EU will need to take precautions. However I think the whole "UK is powerless" chat is nonsense. If we wanted to we could play the long game, become a complete and utter nightmare for the EU by vetoing EU legislation. This is why Tusk is calling for cool heads and allowing us more time as he knows a bitter UK could be a nightmare. 

 

Fwiw I am not suggesting we do the above. I think it would just completely damage relations in the long run and would harm everyone financially. 

 

Heard one curious piece of info on the news and don't quite know how the EU would think it could work.

Tusk is rumoured to be wanting assurances from Theresa May that the UK wouldn't be awkward with the running of the EU.

I don't think that's in her gift, she can only speak for Tory MEP's and if Ukip & Farage's party win lots of seats, then I fail to see how she could control them or indeed Labour MEP's for that matter, so not sure what the EU are expecting here.

[Boris]

19 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I think they have been painting the EEC/EC/EU as the bad guys for the last 40 years, so nothing new here.

 

Yes, agreed that they have, I guess I was meaning more their rhetoric has become much more aggressive, jingoistic.

 

Do they really represent the Tory party?  Is that the feeling of Tory grass roots?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Boris said:

 

Yes, agreed that they have, I guess I was meaning more their rhetoric has become much more aggressive, jingoistic.

 

Do they really represent the Tory party?  Is that the feeling of Tory grass roots?

 

IMO the EU has fallen for the empty rhetoric of the ERG, when the ERG says it will be disruptive if the UK has to take part in the Euro Elections.

For one I don't think the ERG will be selecting which Tory candidates will be standing for MEP's, so I don't think they will be able to select likeminded people, and then there's the small matter of them getting elected, which at the moment is far from certain, just depends on how much of the public desert the main parties in favour of Ukip & Farage, which is entirely feasible.

 

Again I think people are giving the ERG more kudos than they really deserve or warrant.

 

[NANOJAMBO]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Heard one curious piece of info on the news and don't quite know how the EU would think it could work.

Tusk is rumoured to be wanting assurances from Theresa May that the UK wouldn't be awkward with the running of the EU.

I don't think that's in her gift, she can only speak for Tory MEP's and if Ukip & Farage's party win lots of seats, then I fail to see how she could control them or indeed Labour MEP's for that matter, so not sure what the EU are expecting here.

May has given assurances UK will behave/act in good faith while participating in the EU - or words to that effect. Macron is said to pretty pissed off at the rhetoric from Rees-Mogg and for that reason wanted another short extension instead. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

May has given assurances UK will behave/act in good faith while participating in the EU - or words to that effect. Macron is said to pretty pissed off at the rhetoric from Rees-Mogg and for that reason wanted another short extension instead. 

 

May can only give assurances for the behaviour of Tory MEP's, she can't give the same assurances for MEP's from other parties, as she has no control over them.

 

As for Macron, I think if he had his way, the UK would be out now, today, immediately, in part because, he is pissed off with all the fluffing about and also in part because he sees the UK as a stumbling block with what he wants to achieve with the European Project, and the quicker the UK is out the quicker he can try and achieve that, hence why he wants as short an extension as possible.

 

Macron wanted the UK out sooner rather than later, long before the Rees-Mogg txts or tweets.

 

[AlphonseCapone]

[ri Alban]

26 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Not long now.

[Don Dan]

Lot of ifs by Sturgeon in that tweet. 

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Lot of ifs by Sturgeon in that tweet. 

After the last time, do you blame her. Shocking that folk would rather be ruled by the Muppets of Wm, than run their own country.

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

After the last time, do you blame her. Shocking that folk would rather be ruled by the Muppets of Wm, than run their own country.

 

Id rather not be ruled by muppets in Holyrood thanks very much.

[AlphonseCapone]

8 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Lot of ifs by Sturgeon in that tweet. 

 

There's only one? 

[Norm]

7 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Lot of ifs by Sturgeon in that tweet. 

Just the one. It's a ****ing doozey of an if, mind. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Id rather not be ruled by muppets in Holyrood thanks very much.

They're doing just fine. Maybe Ruth will help one day.

[Don Dan]

That is true re the word if. However if Scotland is independent she is assuming Scotland would be admitted to the EU that is another if. 

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

They're doing just fine. Maybe Ruth will help one day.

 

You never know if she gets voted in.

[ri Alban]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

That is true re the word if. However if Scotland is independent she is assuming Scotland would be admitted to the EU that is another if. 

Who says we'll fully join anyway. That's up to the Parties to offer in a manifesto leading up to the Scottish G.E.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

You never know if she gets voted in.

She's splitting her party from from the Tories at Wm.

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Who says we'll fully join anyway. That's up to the Parties to offer in a manifesto leading up to the Scottish G.E.

 

Re Scotland there’s mountains to climb if Scotland were ever to be admitted to the EU. I suggest you and the SNP parliamentarians read the requirements for admittance to the EU. 

[ri Alban]

3 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Re Scotland there’s mountains to climb if Scotland were ever to be admitted to the EU. I suggest you and the SNP parliamentarians read the requirements for admittance to the EU. 

I'm not bothered whether we join or not, and the SNP won't be in government after independence.

[AlphonseCapone]

8 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

Re Scotland there’s mountains to climb if Scotland were ever to be admitted to the EU. I suggest you and the SNP parliamentarians read the requirements for admittance to the EU. 

 

I don't think that can be true. Can you suggest an area or two that will be issue? Unless you're referring to the Euro? 

[Don Dan]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I don't think that can be true. Can you suggest an area or two that will be issue? Unless you're referring to the Euro? 

 

If you look up the criteria for a country joining the EU which you’ll find on the EU web site there’s a whole list of things that need to be met first. Not to mention winning over the 27 members some of whom would not be keen on a recent independent country setting a president. 

[Don Dan]

5 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I don't think that can be true. Can you suggest an area or two that will be issue? Unless you're referring to the Euro? 

 

https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en