nothing, it's like saying "i don't eat chocolate, but i can eat any chocolate provided it contains no chocolate"
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
The sensible thing would be to take the deal and negotiate the future relationship thereafter but... there are are so many different factions in the HoC all with their own agenda, none of them are for the good of the country.
tick tock mainly.
In perpetuity my arse. Like something out of a science fantasy novel, it doesn't exist.
What does unilaterally mean and what's the opposite of it?
You are 100% and that's the problem. You say it yourself. "If they still want to,..."
High skilled employees in the EU are not starving, they are well at their country and they have a lot of other countries in the EU where they can go earning the same or more than the UK (nordic countries, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc...
UK is attractive because it has high salaries (like the mentioned countries), a good health care system (yes, NHS still a top health care) like the mentioned countries and many characteristics the same as those countries. But the main advantage is english. Is comfortable to reach your future job knowing the language or somewhat familiar with it instead of german, finish, danish, dutch, etc...
Out of the EU, you will still have that but you will not have the free of movement and any quotas, advantages and exceptions, will not move a collective that they are ok at their home. My doctors friends in Spain are ok in Spain even if they earn much less (don't forget that the pound had weakened a lot also) and if they move to the UK is for the FoM, no headaches to earn more.
It might work in several years when those quotas will be established and renowned for several years. But at the beginning, they will not be fond of an unstable situation, when they really don't need it and have other options
Making a decision by yourself
The opposite is kinda obvious when you know that
Ah yeah makes more sense now, I had an idea that's what it was, just wanted it clarifying.
What happens if, and probably when, May loses the vote tomorrow? The options aren't mutually exclusive but I'd guess that in order of most to least likely they are,
- No deal
- Delay
- New PM
- 2nd referendum
- General election
- Withdrawal of A50
So what time is the vote? Late in the evening presumably.
Nothing has changed.
Just more lies and subterfuge from May, surely the worst PM in modern history. The way this nothing has been delivered is something to behold, a staggeringly brazen "fraud".
I can see it actually hardening opposition to the deal.
Just more lies and subterfuge from May, surely the worst PM in modern history. The way this nothing has been delivered is something to behold, a staggeringly brazen "fraud".
I can see it actually hardening opposition to the deal.
Could be. People react badly to being peed on and told that it is raining.
And thats how we got here in the 1st place.
We got here by being pissed on by the Tories and the Tories convincing the public it was actually the EU that was urinating.
My guess, vote to delay brexit for a couple of months. May goes on a bunch of useless trips to Brussels. At the end, May presents same deal to parliament.
Only this time, it won't be possible to delay and it won't be possible to stay because EU elections would have happened.
Then it's really May's deal or we drive off a cliff.
I see most of the press seem to be backing this "new" deal now. They're obviously worried that it's this or no Brexit at all now.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0312/1035807-us_backstop_warning/
But.. but.. I thought leaving the EU meant the UK would be able to get all these lovely trade agreements with the US and co.?
But.. but.. I thought leaving the EU meant the UK would be able to get all these lovely trade agreements with the US and co.?
I'd guess so... I don't think the legal advice has been issued yet... Amendments have not been raised yet... I'd guess somewhere between 7 and 10
Jon Snow on C4 News (post tweet someone - I don't do Twitter), says a legal associate of his reckons that the AG said 'no' to the deal and was subsequently told to go away and find a way of saying 'yes'
If this is true shes going to get totally rinsed in the HoC.
If this is true shes going to get totally rinsed in the HoC.
Dont remember them saying that. The first part of your post is correct.
Change it yo brexiteers (who are mostly tory or even more right wing).
The only way that becomes a problem if is somebody proves that is what happened... And attorney client etc... Simply can't see that becoming a problem
Unless he resigns having been put in that position. Which if he was, then he should.
Still Would be protected under attorney client and they then just appoint a new ag who gives them the required legal cover for the deal... Don't think this will go anywhere
The problem is that he is effectively marking his own homework so I would expect pretty robust legal challenges to his opinion. If he has been forced to change it then said challenges may give him pause for thought about his position.
Nah, if he suddenly left his post there would be a massive uproar because it would be very obvious why. The legal opinion doesn't actually mean anything, its just a way to convince MP's to vote with her.
Perhaps... But any challenge will take time... And if his legal cover is a high enough ladder for the erg and dup to climb down from then the deal goes through today (potentially)... And any legal challenge is simply dismissed as "remoaning" ... If it's not sufficient to get the deal through then all attention is on the no deal and extension votes...
It may well have happened... I just don't think given the stuff going on it will get traction as an issue and go anywhere
Our Attourney General's professional response to the accusation that he initially said no..
Obviously, nothing has changed. There is still no legally binding way out of the backstop or time limit. Cox can only come out with a vague farce using the GF agreement, ECHR or similar..
May came out and blatantly lied last night, the changes are not legally binding. We can only hope that she is finally held to account for such utterly despicable conduct.
As it may be one of Theresa May’s last public statements as PM, I have taken the trouble to analyse what she really meant last night:
Last November, after two years of hard-fought negotiations, I agreed a Brexit deal with the EU that I passionately believe delivers on the decision taken by the British people to leave the European Union.
“I agreed” but unfortunately not “we agreed” because I made no effort to reach out to anyone outside my immediate circle . Anyway, I’ll throw in “passionately” - a word you commonly associate with me and evidence that I am in no way trying to convince myself that this is indeed worth it.
Over the last four months, I have made the case for that deal in Westminster and across the UK.
Over the last 4 months I have cynically tried to run down the clock to leave MPs with the choice of my deal or no deal.
I stand by what that deal achieves for my country.
I stand by what it achieves for my parochial vision of my country.
It means we regain control of our laws, by ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK.
Which was a burning issue for the 0.0001% of the population who are members of the ERG or IEA.
Regain control of our borders, by ending free movement.
I am today proclaiming it a victory that British citizens lose their rights to work abroad in the EU 27 because, if you have the outlook of an elderly spinster in a Jane Austen novel, why would you want to cross the Channel anyway?
Regain control of our money, by ending vast annual payments to the EU.
I’ll rehash the old Cummings line about “take back control” and hope no one notices the fact that the “vast annual payments” are a drop in the ocean compared to the expected hit to GDP.
The end of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy for British farmers and fishermen.
Let us celebrate a pyrrhic victory for farmers before the onslaught of US food imports and a small gain for an industry whose overall contribution to GDP is a rounding error. And an end to unfettered access to the huge single market for goods and services on our doorstep.
An independent trade policy.
And absolutely not “independent” in the same way that the elderly lame wildebeest dropping off the back of the herd is independent as the lions close in. I have already endeared myself to that nice Mr Xi by overturning all the commitments George Osbourne made to him, and I am sure Donald sets great store by the special relationship.
And the deal sets us on course for a good future relationship with our friends and allies in the EU.
We included a few pages of waffle in the agreement. Let’s hope that the electorate is too uninformed or disengaged to notice that the hard work starts now, with a negotiation counterparty who is already sick of me and does not trust us.
A close economic partnership that is good for business.
If we can agree one and, in any case, not as good as the one we currently have.
Ongoing security co-operation to keep our peoples safe.
Starting to run out of bullet points now. Need to come up with at least 5 to justify 2 years’ work at the exclusion of anything else.
The deal honours the referendum result and is good for both the UK and the EU.
It honours my arbitrary interpretation of the referendum result and is good for keeping the Conservative Party together for a few more months.
But there was a clear concern in Parliament over one issue in particular: the Northern Ireland backstop.
Losing a vote by 240+ was reasonably clear even to someone with a tin ear like me.
Having an insurance policy to guarantee that there will never be a hard border in Northern Ireland is absolutely right – it honours the UK’s solemn commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
It’s “absolutely right” - unfortunately I “absolutely” failed to take this issue into account when I set out my red lines.
But if we ever have to use that insurance policy, it cannot become a permanent arrangement and it is not the template for our future relationship.
The deal that MPs voted on in January was not strong enough in making that clear – and legally binding changes were needed to set that right.
And try to forget the fact that I had repeatedly sold the November deal as the only deal available.
Today we have agreed them.
And now for the difficult bit....
First, a joint instrument with comparable legal weight to the Withdrawal Agreement will guarantee that the EU cannot act with the intent of applying the backstop indefinitely.
“Intent” being notoriously easy to prove of course.
If they do, it can be challenged through arbitration and if they are found to be in breach the UK can suspend the backstop.
And taking the EU to arbitration alleging bad faith would obviously help build the close relationship I hailed earlier.
The joint instrument also gives a legal commitment that whatever replaces the backstop does not need to replicate it.
So, if we learn how to square circles in the meantime, we no longer need it.
And it entrenches in legally-binding form the commitments made in the exchange of letters with Presidents Tusk and Juncker in January.
Mmm, how to spin the fact that I have achieved nothing in the last 2 months....
Second, the UK and the EU have made a joint statement in relation to the Political Declaration.
It sets out a number of commitments to enhance and expedite the process of negotiating and bringing into force the future relationship.
And it makes a legal commitment that the UK and the EU will begin work immediately to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020.
Three paragraphs to make it look like we have achieved more than an agreement that we will start work on trying to agree.
There will be a specific negotiating track on alternative arrangements from the very start of the next phase of negotiations.
We are setting up a sub-committee to investigate unicorns.
It will consider facilitations and technologies – both those currently ready and emerging.
“Emerging” so far only in scribbles on the back of a fag packet by David Davis.
The UK’s position will be informed by the three domestic groups announced last week – for technical experts, MPs, and business and trade unions.
Note to Labour MPs in Leave voting seats - I am the first Tory PM since Ted Heath to mention trade unions other than in a reference to the winter of discontent. Can I please have your vote?
Third, alongside the joint instrument on the Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom Government will make a Unilateral Declaration that if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately dis-apply the backstop.
“It is the position of the UK”. Unfortunately it may not be the position of the EU, Ireland or any one else with an interest in the Good Friday Agreement.
Unilateral Declarations are commonly used by states alongside the ratification of treaties.
The Lady doth protest...
The Attorney General will set out in legal analysis the meaning of the joint instrument and unilateral declaration to Parliament.
Dear Geoffrey, based on the platitudes above, please rehash your legal opinion into the most outrageous codpiece since Cameo performed “Word Up”. The going rate is a peerage - just ask Peter Goldsmith.
Tomorrow the House of Commons will debate the improved deal that these legal changes have created.
I will speak in more detail about them when I open that debate.
MPs were clear that legal changes were needed to the backstop.
Today we have secured legal changes.
Now is the time to come together, to back this improved Brexit deal, and to deliver on the instruction of the British people.
To conclude - please don’t read the small print. Just sign here..Please...
Last November, after two years of hard-fought negotiations, I agreed a Brexit deal with the EU that I passionately believe delivers on the decision taken by the British people to leave the European Union.
“I agreed” but unfortunately not “we agreed” because I made no effort to reach out to anyone outside my immediate circle . Anyway, I’ll throw in “passionately” - a word you commonly associate with me and evidence that I am in no way trying to convince myself that this is indeed worth it.
Over the last four months, I have made the case for that deal in Westminster and across the UK.
Over the last 4 months I have cynically tried to run down the clock to leave MPs with the choice of my deal or no deal.
I stand by what that deal achieves for my country.
I stand by what it achieves for my parochial vision of my country.
It means we regain control of our laws, by ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK.
Which was a burning issue for the 0.0001% of the population who are members of the ERG or IEA.
Regain control of our borders, by ending free movement.
I am today proclaiming it a victory that British citizens lose their rights to work abroad in the EU 27 because, if you have the outlook of an elderly spinster in a Jane Austen novel, why would you want to cross the Channel anyway?
Regain control of our money, by ending vast annual payments to the EU.
I’ll rehash the old Cummings line about “take back control” and hope no one notices the fact that the “vast annual payments” are a drop in the ocean compared to the expected hit to GDP.
The end of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy for British farmers and fishermen.
Let us celebrate a pyrrhic victory for farmers before the onslaught of US food imports and a small gain for an industry whose overall contribution to GDP is a rounding error. And an end to unfettered access to the huge single market for goods and services on our doorstep.
An independent trade policy.
And absolutely not “independent” in the same way that the elderly lame wildebeest dropping off the back of the herd is independent as the lions close in. I have already endeared myself to that nice Mr Xi by overturning all the commitments George Osbourne made to him, and I am sure Donald sets great store by the special relationship.
And the deal sets us on course for a good future relationship with our friends and allies in the EU.
We included a few pages of waffle in the agreement. Let’s hope that the electorate is too uninformed or disengaged to notice that the hard work starts now, with a negotiation counterparty who is already sick of me and does not trust us.
A close economic partnership that is good for business.
If we can agree one and, in any case, not as good as the one we currently have.
Ongoing security co-operation to keep our peoples safe.
Starting to run out of bullet points now. Need to come up with at least 5 to justify 2 years’ work at the exclusion of anything else.
The deal honours the referendum result and is good for both the UK and the EU.
It honours my arbitrary interpretation of the referendum result and is good for keeping the Conservative Party together for a few more months.
But there was a clear concern in Parliament over one issue in particular: the Northern Ireland backstop.
Losing a vote by 240+ was reasonably clear even to someone with a tin ear like me.
Having an insurance policy to guarantee that there will never be a hard border in Northern Ireland is absolutely right – it honours the UK’s solemn commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.
It’s “absolutely right” - unfortunately I “absolutely” failed to take this issue into account when I set out my red lines.
But if we ever have to use that insurance policy, it cannot become a permanent arrangement and it is not the template for our future relationship.
The deal that MPs voted on in January was not strong enough in making that clear – and legally binding changes were needed to set that right.
And try to forget the fact that I had repeatedly sold the November deal as the only deal available.
Today we have agreed them.
And now for the difficult bit....
First, a joint instrument with comparable legal weight to the Withdrawal Agreement will guarantee that the EU cannot act with the intent of applying the backstop indefinitely.
“Intent” being notoriously easy to prove of course.
If they do, it can be challenged through arbitration and if they are found to be in breach the UK can suspend the backstop.
And taking the EU to arbitration alleging bad faith would obviously help build the close relationship I hailed earlier.
The joint instrument also gives a legal commitment that whatever replaces the backstop does not need to replicate it.
So, if we learn how to square circles in the meantime, we no longer need it.
And it entrenches in legally-binding form the commitments made in the exchange of letters with Presidents Tusk and Juncker in January.
Mmm, how to spin the fact that I have achieved nothing in the last 2 months....
Second, the UK and the EU have made a joint statement in relation to the Political Declaration.
It sets out a number of commitments to enhance and expedite the process of negotiating and bringing into force the future relationship.
And it makes a legal commitment that the UK and the EU will begin work immediately to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements by the end of December 2020.
Three paragraphs to make it look like we have achieved more than an agreement that we will start work on trying to agree.
There will be a specific negotiating track on alternative arrangements from the very start of the next phase of negotiations.
We are setting up a sub-committee to investigate unicorns.
It will consider facilitations and technologies – both those currently ready and emerging.
“Emerging” so far only in scribbles on the back of a fag packet by David Davis.
The UK’s position will be informed by the three domestic groups announced last week – for technical experts, MPs, and business and trade unions.
Note to Labour MPs in Leave voting seats - I am the first Tory PM since Ted Heath to mention trade unions other than in a reference to the winter of discontent. Can I please have your vote?
Third, alongside the joint instrument on the Withdrawal Agreement, the United Kingdom Government will make a Unilateral Declaration that if the backstop comes into use and discussions on our future relationship break down so that there is no prospect of subsequent agreement, it is the position of the United Kingdom that there would be nothing to prevent the UK instigating measures that would ultimately dis-apply the backstop.
“It is the position of the UK”. Unfortunately it may not be the position of the EU, Ireland or any one else with an interest in the Good Friday Agreement.
Unilateral Declarations are commonly used by states alongside the ratification of treaties.
The Lady doth protest...
The Attorney General will set out in legal analysis the meaning of the joint instrument and unilateral declaration to Parliament.
Dear Geoffrey, based on the platitudes above, please rehash your legal opinion into the most outrageous codpiece since Cameo performed “Word Up”. The going rate is a peerage - just ask Peter Goldsmith.
Tomorrow the House of Commons will debate the improved deal that these legal changes have created.
I will speak in more detail about them when I open that debate.
MPs were clear that legal changes were needed to the backstop.
Today we have secured legal changes.
Now is the time to come together, to back this improved Brexit deal, and to deliver on the instruction of the British people.
To conclude - please don’t read the small print. Just sign here..Please...
You have to remember Cox is in effect the governments mouth peice, he proved that with his spin last time round.
He'll spin the feck out of this and will avoid giving any damaging answer. The loss will be halved because the government and media have provided some cover for members to retreat from their objections.
He'll spin the feck out of this and will avoid giving any damaging answer. The loss will be halved because the government and media have provided some cover for members to retreat from their objections.
I have a horrible feeling this will be close.
People's Vote have produced legal advice from 3 top lawyers who are experts in EU and international law who say this latest agreement is basically nonsense that changes nothing.
Going to be closer, doubt it's going to be close.
I just have a feeling the Brexiteers (inc Labour ones) will take it as a 'win' (despite knowing for well it's a fudge) and Tory Remainers will fall in to line at the last second because of some misguided belief that voting through the deal and 'ending uncertainty' is sensible.
Hopefully the numbers aren't there, but I'm not as confident as I would be if May had come back completely empty handed as opposed to carrying gift wrapped empty boxes.
May has already presented all sides with a way out. Think parliament will take it .June/July is the real cliff edge where your scenario might likely play out.