Brexiters go on about making our own laws, and presumably applying them. It would be funny if the 'traitors of the people' did their job and found brexit to have been invalid. I doubt very much if that will happen.
Brexiters go on about making our own laws, and presumably applying them. It would be funny if the 'traitors of the people' did their job and found brexit to have been invalid. I doubt very much if that will happen.
Much like the fury vented at Gina Miller when she determined that Parliament should have the final say on the deal and not Government. Only for that fury to be assuaged somewhat when the most rabid of Brexiters realised they could use a Parliamentary vote to deny Theresa May's Chequers/draft agreement to go through next week.
Independence of the judiciary. Funny old thing, innit?
Ah so @southbank has finally blown the Soros dogwhistle.
Right then mate, I'll let you in on something. I'm a beneficiary of George Soros. To the tune of €1500.
What did I do with this money? Did I use this wall of money to set about subverting Czech or UK democracy to help him make more billions (as the alt.right would suppose and suggest).?
Well. I used it to set up the Czech version of the WhatDoTheyKnow website. The website used to force for example the full disclosure of the West Ham Olympic Stadium contract. The website that could assist you in getting information that would help you uncover whether George Soros had clandestinely contributed funds to some public body.
As a result of this I joined a community comprising some of the most wonderful people I have ever met. For example in Hungary the people who run the same FOI site have for their troubles been raided, physically threatened by police and shadowy private persons, had their computers taken, been subjected to spurious intimidating tax audits..for running a website which helps people use an active law to seek information about their own public bodies.
This is the sort of thing Soros' Open Society Fund does. You can easily go to their website and see what they do. I somehow doubt you will like it. But you will struggle to demonstrate that it is anti-democratic. It gives voice to the weak, the under-represented, the discriminated against. I think that is something a mature, self-confident democracy welcomes.
So I'd think twice before blowing that particular dogwhistle here, if I were you...
Fucking thank you. I was getting increasingly concerned this dog whistle anti semitism was going unopposed.
Anyone spouting the Soros line, especially designating him as an “other” (elite in this case) is anti Semitic. Which is the main problem I have with calling some one the “elite”. It’s empty, and relies on conspiracy theories.
Soros, Banks, Murdoch, all take a shit and fart and are human beings, they may be unpleasant and sociopathic but they’re not worldwide puppet masters.
What on earth are you talking about?
Maybe read about the history of anti semitism. You might learn about something called the holocaust, Shylock in the merchant of Venice. The idea that there is a bunch of rich Jews controlling everything. You know, that kind of thing.
I know the history of antisemitism, thanks. The guy is using his financial clout in a political setting. I dont, have a problem with that, but to call someone an anti-semite purely for pointing out that he is doing so, is laughable.
You should take a look at the exact way he is being attacked in Hungary, his home country, and in the US. And by the way do you think that helping people set up websites which assist people in making a Freedom of Information request, is "political"? Or a grant for NGOs that help ethnic minorities who struggle in a given country? Or a grant that helps support investigative journalism?
And what about Soros supposed bad crime against Britain ? You know, "breaking the pound" as the average person reads and parrots back. I think you of all people will struggle to assert that this was so bad. But then for 25 years nobody had much to say about Soros either way, despite him setting up OSF and similar foundations gradullay over that period. Despite Central European Uni functioning just fine in Budapest until Orban came along. Funny, that, huh?
As well as being hated by Trump and the Alt Right Soros has also been attacked by the Government of Israel (more specifically members of the ruling Likud Party). Apparently Netanyahu dislikes left wing politics more than he dislike anti-semitism (see Hungary).
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism also has had some choice words to say about him in the past (but I can't find it on their website anymore, in fact I can't find their website anymore!) and failed to criticise an article full of dog whistle anti-semitism tropes published in the Daily Telegraph. They decided that as he was meddling in British politics he was open to criticism.
For some reason I think you work in finance (a very generic description of course).
Would you like to explain how his actions in 1992 were uniquely evil, and have never been carried out by any other lovely hedge fund managers )other than the reason that they didn't have his financial clout)?
And would you like to explain why all the stuff he does now - the object of so much vitriolic criticism - is so bad? Should I pay back my €1500 in shame?
Anyone? What is so uniquely bad about George Soros? Let's be avin yer...
What are you on about?
He isn’t uniquely bad, or uniquely good. He is someone who is prepared to bankrupt entire countries if that serves his personal interest. That was my point and I am really not sure why you are getting so wound up about that comment. Read it again. Not unique to him, as I think I said.
Now he has made more money than he and his descendants can spend maybe he is trying to do some good, I have not been exposed to it but recognise you may have been an I have no issues with that at all.
I have read your original comment again. Maybe you have not been exposed to the full array of bile and hate spewing out against him on social media at this time, linking him to all kinds of events he has nothing to do with. It's only a matter of time before some clown finds a link between him and Roland.
You did say, perhaps because you had casually read about Black Wednesday but are too young to have really experienced it, that he both "bankrupts and develops entire countries". That is a ridiculous exaggeration, in both directions. However it is very common to read such shit now. Like you, I wasn't even aware that he isn't Jewish until recently. Probably when Orban started bullying him. What I am getting wound up about is this: Black Wednesday happened 26 years ago. He made one billion, and immediately started his philanthropic activities with the profits. Why then, is so much hate and bile directed at him in just the last 3 years, and why does so much of it inform people that he is Jewish?
In case anyone wonders, I have zero Jewish blood, and hardly any close friends who do. I just find bullying disgusting. I know what it leads to. It starts in the playground and it ends in gas chambers.
The EU27's response to Brexit and their united viewpoint of the draft agreement shows how much the UK decision to leave has brought them together. The idea of any other country leaving now seems very far-fetched; it is quite the reverse now of the predictions that Brexit would start a domino effect of other countries quitting as well. Macron is talking of reform, there will be a new German chancellor soon and along with young progressive country leaders like Spain's Pedro Sanchez it's a shame the UK won't be involved in the next stages of the EU, and will instead be on the outside looking in.
Teresa May’s and the Tory machine charm offensive will now start in ernest. The constituency parties will come under pressure to support the deal and they in turn will put pressure on their MP’s. The whips will be honing their skills with threats and sweeteners to the backbenchers. The Tory press will be espousing the deal and just how good it is for the country and in the end our hard fought and tense negotiations squeezed important concessions out of the EU. The DUP will be given any assurances they want regardless of ability to deliver.
This coming vote is going to be a damned close run thing. My guess is that against all the odds that this is going to get through the house.
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
Teresa May’s and the Tory machine charm offensive will now start in ernest. The constituency parties will come under pressure to support the deal and they in turn will put pressure on their MP’s. The whips will be honing their skills with threats and sweeteners to the backbenchers. The Tory press will be espousing the deal and just how good it is for the country and in the end our hard fought and tense negotiations squeezed important concessions out of the EU. The DUP will be given any assurances they want regardless of ability to deliver.
This coming vote is going to be a damned close run thing. My guess is that against all the odds that this is going to get through the house.
Am I right in that one dissenting Tory MP was given/offered a Knighthood last week Carrot and stick time for the Tory whips.
Teresa May’s and the Tory machine charm offensive will now start in ernest. The constituency parties will come under pressure to support the deal and they in turn will put pressure on their MP’s. The whips will be honing their skills with threats and sweeteners to the backbenchers. The Tory press will be espousing the deal and just how good it is for the country and in the end our hard fought and tense negotiations squeezed important concessions out of the EU. The DUP will be given any assurances they want regardless of ability to deliver.
This coming vote is going to be a damned close run thing. My guess is that against all the odds that this is going to get through the house.
Am I right in that one dissenting Tory MP was given/offered a Knighthood last week Carrot and stick time for the Tory whips.
Apparently it is Tory MP John Hayes. Do Tory voters realise how much establishment patronage goes on in the party they support? Maybe they don't care. During this brexit nightmare we haven't heard from Freemasons. Maybe they have risen above the fray.
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Fair enough, which is why I clearly stated it isn’t likely to be unbiased. Unfortunately I cannot find any other relevant legal assessments of the WA.
Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe this is not a rubbish deal? Because, from a non-legal perspective, if doesn’t look very good to me .., but I could also be accused of bias
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
I've not Read Martin Howe's Spectator piece - as it's behind the Spectator's 'pay wall' - so I can't make a judgement on it.
However, No. 10's direct response to Martin Howe's article, also in the Spectator, curiously is not 'pay walled':
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
I've not Read Martin Howe's Spectator piece - as it's behind the Spectator's 'pay wall' - so I can't make a judgement on it.
However, No. 10's direct response to Martin Howe's article, also in the Spectator, curiously is not 'pay walled':
“The UK will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify Free Trade Agreements with rest of world partners and, following the Implementation Period, implement any elements that do not affect the functioning of the backstop – such as those aspects related to services, procurement and investment.”
For some reason I think you work in finance (a very generic description of course).
Would you like to explain how his actions in 1992 were uniquely evil, and have never been carried out by any other lovely hedge fund managers )other than the reason that they didn't have his financial clout)?
And would you like to explain why all the stuff he does now - the object of so much vitriolic criticism - is so bad? Should I pay back my €1500 in shame?
Anyone? What is so uniquely bad about George Soros? Let's be avin yer...
What are you on about?
He isn’t uniquely bad, or uniquely good. He is someone who is prepared to bankrupt entire countries if that serves his personal interest. That was my point and I am really not sure why you are getting so wound up about that comment. Read it again. Not unique to him, as I think I said.
Now he has made more money than he and his descendants can spend maybe he is trying to do some good, I have not been exposed to it but recognise you may have been an I have no issues with that at all.
I have read your original comment again. Maybe you have not been exposed to the full array of bile and hate spewing out against him on social media at this time, linking him to all kinds of events he has nothing to do with. It's only a matter of time before some clown finds a link between him and Roland.
You did say, perhaps because you had casually read about Black Wednesday but are too young to have really experienced it, that he both "bankrupts and develops entire countries". That is a ridiculous exaggeration, in both directions. However it is very common to read such shit now. Like you, I wasn't even aware that he isn't Jewish until recently. Probably when Orban started bullying him. What I am getting wound up about is this: Black Wednesday happened 26 years ago. He made one billion, and immediately started his philanthropic activities with the profits. Why then, is so much hate and bile directed at him in just the last 3 years, and why does so much of it inform people that he is Jewish?
In case anyone wonders, I have zero Jewish blood, and hardly any close friends who do. I just find bullying disgusting. I know what it leads to. It starts in the playground and it ends in gas chambers.
Fair enough. I’ll admit it was an exaggeration. I was 18 on Black Wednesday and all I really recall was that Soros took on my country and won a lot of money,
Having just looked him up he has invested a lot of his personal wealth in liberal causes and for that I applaud him.
Still no idea whether he is nor is not Jewish and I don’t care so there really is no need to llet me know.
Apologies for the misunderstanding though genuinely wasn’t aware Soros bashing is a thing
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Fair enough, which is why I clearly stated it isn’t likely to be unbiased. Unfortunately I cannot find any other relevant legal assessments of the WA.
Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe this is not a rubbish deal? Because, from a non-legal perspective, if doesn’t look very good to me .., but I could also be accused of bias
In my opinion...
The Withdrawal Agreement is, sadly, the best that could be negotiated, given the red lines laid out, the approach taken to attempt to negotiate with individual member states, and the time wasted with grandstanding.
I don't believe that it was possible to get a good deal with Brexit (because, IMHO, the UK already has the best deal with the EU), I do believe it was possible to get a workable deal, and, as far as it goes, what has been agreed is workable, and better than crashing out without a deal. There's nothing particularly shit about the deal that has been agreed - the political declaration is up for revision and is a wish list, in all honesty.
It is blackly, and bleakly, amusing to see those who had, for most of the past two years, claimed that the land border in Ireland was inconsequential suddenly now going berserk about the potential backstop.
The UK and EU have agreed that there will be an insurance policy, to prevent the need for additional controls on the border, should it not be possible to agree a trading relationship that would achieve the same aim. Both sides have been vocal in their assertions that they wished to avoid change and would ensure that they would do everything that they could to come to an arrangement that would make the backstop obsolete.
But, the thing is, the backstop is not a UK only insurance policy, it's a joint policy. It's not unreasonable, from the other side of the border (and for many on this side as well), to have a position where both have to agree to have the backstop removed or amended - however, it is clear that, if a better solution can be found, it would be implemented.
Listening to Michael Howard this afternoon, he seems to expect that the UK can effectively tell the EU to eff off and leave with no deal, but that the EU should agree a series of ad hoc deals to protect the UK.
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
I'm not going to state that the article is either entirely or partially wrong, because, lacking specific expertise, it would, in effect, be nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Fair enough, which is why I clearly stated it isn’t likely to be unbiased. Unfortunately I cannot find any other relevant legal assessments of the WA.
Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe this is not a rubbish deal? Because, from a non-legal perspective, if doesn’t look very good to me .., but I could also be accused of bias
In my opinion...
The Withdrawal Agreement is, sadly, the best that could be negotiated, given the red lines laid out, the approach taken to attempt to negotiate with individual member states, and the time wasted with grandstanding.
I don't believe that it was possible to get a good deal with Brexit (because, IMHO, the UK already has the best deal with the EU), I do believe it was possible to get a workable deal, and, as far as it goes, what has been agreed is workable, and better than crashing out without a deal. There's nothing particularly shit about the deal that has been agreed - the political declaration is up for revision and is a wish list, in all honesty.
It is blackly, and bleakly, amusing to see those who had, for most of the past two years, claimed that the land border in Ireland was inconsequential suddenly now going berserk about the potential backstop.
The UK and EU have agreed that there will be an insurance policy, to prevent the need for additional controls on the border, should it not be possible to agree a trading relationship that would achieve the same aim. Both sides have been vocal in their assertions that they wished to avoid change and would ensure that they would do everything that they could to come to an arrangement that would make the backstop obsolete.
But, the thing is, the backstop is not a UK only insurance policy, it's a joint policy. It's not unreasonable, from the other side of the border (and for many on this side as well), to have a position where both have to agree to have the backstop removed or amended - however, it is clear that, if a better solution can be found, it would be implemented.
Listening to Michael Howard this afternoon, he seems to expect that the UK can effectively tell the EU to eff off and leave with no deal, but that the EU should agree a series of ad hoc deals to protect the UK.
Immensely frustrating that this week’s Political Declaration was not produced prior to invoking Article 50 - it would have provided an excellent negotiating starting point for both the UK and the EU, and both sides could have benefited from it.
Comments
It would be funny if the 'traitors of the people' did their job and found brexit to have been invalid.
I doubt very much if that will happen.
Independence of the judiciary. Funny old thing, innit?
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism also has had some choice words to say about him in the past (but I can't find it on their website anymore, in fact I can't find their website anymore!) and failed to criticise an article full of dog whistle anti-semitism tropes published in the Daily Telegraph. They decided that as he was meddling in British politics he was open to criticism.
You did say, perhaps because you had casually read about Black Wednesday but are too young to have really experienced it, that he both "bankrupts and develops entire countries". That is a ridiculous exaggeration, in both directions. However it is very common to read such shit now. Like you, I wasn't even aware that he isn't Jewish until recently. Probably when Orban started bullying him. What I am getting wound up about is this: Black Wednesday happened 26 years ago. He made one billion, and immediately started his philanthropic activities with the profits. Why then, is so much hate and bile directed at him in just the last 3 years, and why does so much of it inform people that he is Jewish?
In case anyone wonders, I have zero Jewish blood, and hardly any close friends who do. I just find bullying disgusting. I know what it leads to. It starts in the playground and it ends in gas chambers.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/25/tory-links-us-lobby-firm-facebook-smear-scandal
The DUP will be given any assurances they want regardless of ability to deliver.
This coming vote is going to be a damned close run thing. My guess is that against all the odds that this is going to get through the house.
https://google.co.uk/amp/s/www.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mays-brexit-deal-the-legal-verdict/amp/
Wow, this is an even more shit deal than I had realised. The author apparently specialises in EU law and is chairman of Lawyers for Britain.
Having checked them out, they do suppprt leaving the EU so I have to assume they are not unbiased. Having said that, even if half of what he writes is correct, this really is a deal that cannot be supported.
Carrot and stick time for the Tory whips.
Fantastic journalism by Carole Cadwalladr once again, nailing on the head re Soros and the slime ball that is farage
Do Tory voters realise how much establishment patronage goes on in the party they support? Maybe they don't care.
During this brexit nightmare we haven't heard from Freemasons.
Maybe they have risen above the fray.
But I would highlight the issue you have raised @stonemuse of impartiality - it would be wonderful if we could believe that, in this case, we are being presented with an entirely objective opinion (and, in my experience, many legal opinions seem, almost serendipitously, to arrive at a conclusion that supports the client's interest).
The author has form, IMHO, in putting forward ideologically, rather than solely legally, based media arguments around Brexit (which may not be a bad thing, as a properly reasoned legal opinion may not be the most thrilling of reads), hardly surprising for someone associated with the Brexit Central team.
He is an experienced lawyer (as QCs tend to be), with expertise in certain areas of EU law.
There will be others, with equal, or greater, knowledge, who will disagree with his interpretation.
Just out of interest, does this mean that you believe this is not a rubbish deal? Because, from a non-legal perspective, if doesn’t look very good to me .., but I could also be accused of bias
However, No. 10's direct response to Martin Howe's article, also in the Spectator, curiously is not 'pay walled':
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-brexit-deal-rebuttals-to-the-legal-verdict/
Thanks for this.
Glad to see the below clarification.
“The UK will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify Free Trade Agreements with rest of world partners and, following the Implementation Period, implement any elements that do not affect the functioning of the backstop – such as those aspects related to services, procurement and investment.”
Having just looked him up he has invested a lot of his personal wealth in liberal causes and for that I applaud him.
Still no idea whether he is nor is not Jewish and I don’t care so there really is no need to llet me know.
Apologies for the misunderstanding though genuinely wasn’t aware Soros bashing is a thing
The Withdrawal Agreement is, sadly, the best that could be negotiated, given the red lines laid out, the approach taken to attempt to negotiate with individual member states, and the time wasted with grandstanding.
I don't believe that it was possible to get a good deal with Brexit (because, IMHO, the UK already has the best deal with the EU), I do believe it was possible to get a workable deal, and, as far as it goes, what has been agreed is workable, and better than crashing out without a deal. There's nothing particularly shit about the deal that has been agreed - the political declaration is up for revision and is a wish list, in all honesty.
It is blackly, and bleakly, amusing to see those who had, for most of the past two years, claimed that the land border in Ireland was inconsequential suddenly now going berserk about the potential backstop.
The UK and EU have agreed that there will be an insurance policy, to prevent the need for additional controls on the border, should it not be possible to agree a trading relationship that would achieve the same aim. Both sides have been vocal in their assertions that they wished to avoid change and would ensure that they would do everything that they could to come to an arrangement that would make the backstop obsolete.
But, the thing is, the backstop is not a UK only insurance policy, it's a joint policy. It's not unreasonable, from the other side of the border (and for many on this side as well), to have a position where both have to agree to have the backstop removed or amended - however, it is clear that, if a better solution can be found, it would be implemented.
Listening to Michael Howard this afternoon, he seems to expect that the UK can effectively tell the EU to eff off and leave with no deal, but that the EU should agree a series of ad hoc deals to protect the UK.