The Irish foreign minister yesterday reminded the UK that last December it gave an undertaking in writing regarding the backstop with no time limit attached. Should the UK break that undertaking?
TM only signed because she was backed into a corner & had to. She (probably) thought it wouldn't come to this.....it has & making her out to be stupid (like the rest of the Government)
As far as the EU is concerned it is the UK that signed up, not Theresa May. The EU rightly assume that TM is speaking for the UK, even if some of us think she isn't. The EU didn't back her into a corner, or twist her arm. After all during the 2017 election Theresa May reminded people with some fair degree of relish that she was a 'bloody difficult woman'. Theresa May didn't have to put something in writing on behalf of the UK, she freely chose to.
My understanding was that May agreed that Parliament could have a vote if there was a no deal.
I can't help wondering if the last 2 years has been for effect and in the end it will be contrived that we remain.
If by 'contrived' you are suggesting there has been some kind of plan all along whereby 'they' won't let it happen, or 'they' never wanted it to happen anyway i also have doubts.
Yes, this.
Can you explain more about the 'plan'? If it is just a vague feeling that is still valid in this debate which seems to be peppered with vague feelings in all quarters. I would suggest that logic, evidence, reasoning and depth of analysis have been some of the casualties of the whole brexit debate, and what remains is 'red in tooth and claw'.
I suspect what she will do is not try to persuade them, but ask for more time to persuade parliament. That has been the story of this sorry saga and there is no point having more time if you have zero chance of changing anything in that time!
On Newsnight last night they said this is the most likely outcome with ministers then having to face the cliff edge "no deal" with no time to do anything else......so will probably agree to it
In my mind it has to be agreed by mid-late Nov so as to give both our Houses to agree & ratify it.
What do you think would happen if both houses refuse to agree a no deal, @golfaddick ? I am not trying to "catch you out" - I am curious to know what anyone thinks would happen in this circumstance.
Farage and Rees-Mogg would be incandescent, of course. Johnson would start to position himself as the Shite in Whining Armour who could take over in one fell swoop. Remainers would push for a decision to rescind Article 50. And the Cabinet... who knows?
My understanding was that May agreed that Parliament could have a vote if there was a no deal.
I can't help wondering if the last 2 years has been for effect and in the end it will be contrived that we remain.
If by 'contrived' you are suggesting there has been some kind of plan all along whereby 'they' won't let it happen, or 'they' never wanted it to happen anyway i also have doubts.
Yes, this.
Can you explain more about the 'plan'? If it is just a vague feeling that is still valid in this debate which seems to be peppered with vague feelings in all quarters. I would suggest that logic, evidence, reasoning and depth of analysis have been some of the casualties of the whole brexit debate, and what remains is 'red in tooth and claw'.
Yes, call it a vague feeling or whatever.
But we have Theresa May who is pro remain, negotiating with the EU who also would like us to stay (for the benefit of the whole EU).
So it is far from impossible, that the outcome can be engineered that we remain. Let's be frank, if it is possible, then they would need to drag the farce out for as long as they can.
It might well be nonsense, but I'm just saying I have an inkling, that by hook or by crook, we may remain or at the very least come as close to remaining as we were/are as is possible.
The Irish foreign minister yesterday reminded the UK that last December it gave an undertaking in writing regarding the backstop with no time limit attached. Should the UK break that undertaking?
TM only signed because she was backed into a corner & had to. She (probably) thought it wouldn't come to this.....it has & making her out to be stupid (like the rest of the Government)
Perfidious Albion. Gove said we could just change our mind later. May has a credibility problem. She protested that she has negotiated in good faith but sadly our reputation for bad faith negotiations when it doesn't suit.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
To answer golf's question from 3 pages back (some of us have to work!) she should go for the softest possible brexit, given the closeness of the referendum result she never had a mandate for anything else. That probably means single market as well as CU and whatever minor concessions could be added to those Cameron previously brought back to mitigate any impacts of high levels of migration. As an aside the multiple choice questions golf offers are clearly designed to make Cameron the fall guy but that won't wash, those who voted for brexit were gullible if they genuinely thought that cake and eat it was an option. Whilst not a fan of Cameron politically I also recall that he at least campaigned hard to stay in, something labour under Corbyn was not allowed to do.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
Dominic Raab heard your question and provided an answer tonight...basically the vote will be May’s deal or no deal. If May doesn’t get a deal then, I’m inferring from the letter he has written, that there will be no other option than no deal.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
I guess some people have learned nothing in the past couple of years and are still happy to spout the £350M a week rubbish that even Boris has distanced himself from.
So it’s going to come down to this is my deal. Vote it down. I dare you.
She needs to get a deal to vote down first!
News from Brussels is that the solution to the backstop issue she has presented to the other EU leaders is to extend the “implementation period” (the time period between March next year and 01/01/21 that she said wouldn’t be extended). I’m guessing this won’t work for the EU, as it isn’t actually a solution at all - it’s simply more time to try and magic one up.
I think she’ll get a deal. Problem is it won’t satisfy either side of the house. If she does push for this deal or no deal then it’s the end for her and possibly the Tories as we know and love.
Looking possible that an extension to the transition period could be agreed in the hope it provides time to find solutions. The nut jobs are not going to like that. Crisis for May of huge proportions looming.
David Davis as the new looney tune as leader anyone ?
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
I guess some people have learned nothing in the past couple of years and are still happy to spout the £350M a week rubbish that even Boris has distanced himself from.
I would go away and do the maths on my 8.6 billion, my friend.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
I guess some people have learned nothing in the past couple of years and are still happy to spout the £350M a week rubbish that even Boris has distanced himself from.
I would go away and do the maths on my 8.6 billion, my friend.
Right, £350M minus the rebate (they probably couldn’t fit the rebate part on the side of that bus) completely ignoring the financial benefit this country economy enjoys from being part of the SM, my friend.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
I guess some people have learned nothing in the past couple of years and are still happy to spout the £350M a week rubbish that even Boris has distanced himself from.
I would go away and do the maths on my 8.6 billion, my friend.
Right, £350M minus the rebate (they probably couldn’t fit the rebate part on the side of that bus) completely ignoring the financial benefit this country economy enjoys from being part of the SM, my friend.
Is that an apology for saying I was 'spouting the 350m a week rubbish'? If so I accept.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
I guess some people have learned nothing in the past couple of years and are still happy to spout the £350M a week rubbish that even Boris has distanced himself from.
I would go away and do the maths on my 8.6 billion, my friend.
Right, £350M minus the rebate (they probably couldn’t fit the rebate part on the side of that bus) completely ignoring the financial benefit this country economy enjoys from being part of the SM, my friend.
Is that an apology for saying I was 'spouting the 350m a week rubbish'? If so I accept.
Parliament has already got agreement on having a vote on a no deal scenario, so they can send the government back to the table. The government would most likely call a referendum in those circumstances. It would be hard for either side not to respect the result of that although it is unlikely to stop the split in the country.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
As a Leaver I am now coming round to the idea of a second referendum. As Remainers say, we now know more than we did 2 years ago. So the question on the referendum should be this: Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
I’m not sure the electoral commission would approve that wording, they might find it slightly leading.
But that is the real choice
The theoretical choice available will be leave with "no deal", go with the deal which has been agreed OR abort the process / revoke Article 50, assuming that this is legally possible.
The third option is obviously "Remain" and including it appears the most legitimate democratic way for the UK electorate to address the question, especially given that the 2016 vote was advisory. And let us note that recent polls are 52:48 in favour of Remain. However, the Government are trying to avoid that right now and it isn't clear whether the opposition can force that choice onto the ballot paper? As Sir Keir Starmer stated at the Labour conference, "nobody is ruling out Remain as an option".
Think about this for a second... is the Government goint to attempt to rule out Remain when they propose the agreement? And will Tory Remain MPs actually support that tactic?
Looking possible that an extension to the transition period could be agreed in the hope it provides time to find solutions. The nut jobs are not going to like that. Crisis for May of huge proportions looming.
David Davis as the new looney tune as leader anyone ?
However, to get a transition period, extended or not, the UK must agree an exit deal with the EU27, who, to date, require a Northern Ireland-specific permanent/all weather, backstop to prepare for any possible scenario short of a future relationship that is as good as now...
I want to repeat because it is gaining traction and might well happen, that I believe a peoples vote/referendum would be a nasty episode, and unwelcome, but might still represent the least shitty of all the other shitty alternatives. It makes me shudder. If our so called precious sovereign parliament is so valued, then I would think that a General Election, fought principally on the brexit issue would possibly help with this impasse.
Comments
The EU didn't back her into a corner, or twist her arm. After all during the 2017 election Theresa May reminded people with some fair degree of relish that she was a 'bloody difficult woman'.
Theresa May didn't have to put something in writing on behalf of the UK, she freely chose to.
If it is just a vague feeling that is still valid in this debate which seems to be peppered with vague feelings in all quarters. I would suggest that logic, evidence, reasoning and depth of analysis have been some of the casualties of the whole brexit debate, and what remains is 'red in tooth and claw'.
Farage and Rees-Mogg would be incandescent, of course. Johnson would start to position himself as the Shite in Whining Armour who could take over in one fell swoop. Remainers would push for a decision to rescind Article 50. And the Cabinet... who knows?
But we have Theresa May who is pro remain, negotiating with the EU who also would like us to stay (for the benefit of the whole EU).
So it is far from impossible, that the outcome can be engineered that we remain.
Let's be frank, if it is possible, then they would need to drag the farce out for as long as they can.
It might well be nonsense, but I'm just saying I have an inkling, that by hook or by crook, we may remain or at the very least come as close to remaining as we were/are as is possible.
Fixed that for you...
I like that a lot.
So the question on the referendum should be this:
Should we instruct our politicians to leave the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.Or, should we say no to the last Referendum result to leave the EU, carry on with free movement of people into the UK, and carry on paying 8.6 billion net a year into the EU.Vote yes for leaving and no for staying.
As an aside the multiple choice questions golf offers are clearly designed to make Cameron the fall guy but that won't wash, those who voted for brexit were gullible if they genuinely thought that cake and eat it was an option.
Whilst not a fan of Cameron politically I also recall that he at least campaigned hard to stay in, something labour under Corbyn was not allowed to do.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p06p2d90
News from Brussels is that the solution to the backstop issue she has presented to the other EU leaders is to extend the “implementation period” (the time period between March next year and 01/01/21 that she said wouldn’t be extended). I’m guessing this won’t work for the EU, as it isn’t actually a solution at all - it’s simply more time to try and magic one up.
David Davis as the new looney tune as leader anyone ?
If so I accept.
The third option is obviously "Remain" and including it appears the most legitimate democratic way for the UK electorate to address the question, especially given that the 2016 vote was advisory. And let us note that recent polls are 52:48 in favour of Remain. However, the Government are trying to avoid that right now and it isn't clear whether the opposition can force that choice onto the ballot paper? As Sir Keir Starmer stated at the Labour conference, "nobody is ruling out Remain as an option".
Think about this for a second... is the Government goint to attempt to rule out Remain when they propose the agreement? And will Tory Remain MPs actually support that tactic?
If our so called precious sovereign parliament is so valued, then I would think that a General Election, fought principally on the brexit issue would possibly help with this impasse.