kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
charlie14 wrote: » With May asking for a review, then if that is the case with Germany, especially with Merkel off the stage in a few years time now perhaps looking more towards domestic affairs than European, it would make me wonder what May hopes to achieve from a review now that wasn`t there before.
keane2097 wrote: » Is there some extra imperative on Labour members not to defy the whip that won't apply to Tories when the time to vote arrives? You seem to be implying that the various Labour factions will be cowed by it but the various Tory factions won't.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » All of this and RobMc59s posts are based on the idea that the other European countries aren't going to be pay any heed to a border issue, the effect is has on the people either side, the potential strife and body count it might brings. Basically the 'why are the paddies fretting about nothing?' line which the UK media tries to put out. Almost a quarter of the EU countries have had major border issues in the current generation (the Balkan countries, Cyprus) and the rest have had border issues a couple of generations ago (arguably the main reason the EU was set up was to stop such border issues causing wars again), so I don't think we've a huge lot to worry about here. They may be annoyed by it and wish it wasn't an issue, but I don't think they'll be asking us to grin and bear it.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » I think the idea that was being put forward is that more than enough Labour will vote Yes to the deal to cover the amount of Tory and DUP MPs who will vote No. The Tories have already started approaching them as we know. The logic being (simplistically) 'you hate Corbyn, the deal isn't terrible, so why not just ignore the whip for the good of the country'. The flaw here is that if Corbyn/Momentum have the 'Blairites' onside (Starmer, SKinnock, Chuck) then it becomes much harder to defy the whip. If you do then on the biggest vote of this parliament you've made yourself out to be deeply unloyal to both the current leadership and the potential future leadership, not a good move at all. And it does seem on this issue that Corbyn will go along with what Starmer decides. I'm probably explaining my thoughts on it really badly..
charlie14 wrote: » I`m not saying they will necessarily just tell us to grin and bear it, but with this suggestion of a UK wide customs union being the answer, just makes me a bit edgy as to how that is meant to achieve anything while holding to the present backstop agreement.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The UK wide customs union is not a concession by the EU - if the UK wanted a CU from day one the EU would have been happy to oblige. It was May's red lines which ruled out a CU. So now May says she wants a CU for now so that NI is not (very) different. No worries for the EU side. This is not a way to replace the backstop, it is just a way to avoid having the bacstop kick in.
swampgas wrote: » You're not the only one feeling edgy, there's plenty to be worried about.But I would be genuinely shocked, and gutted, if the EU were crazy enough to give way on the backstop. And it may happen that the backstop causes a no-deal Brexit. It's something we have to be ready for, even if the idea of a border going up again sickens me. So yeah, feeling pretty concerned the way things are going.
charlie14 wrote: » swampgas wrote: » The EU caving on the backstop would do the EU lots of reputational damage, internally and externally. Internally, it would be a message that smaller countries will be thrown under the bus at the last minute if it suits the majority or the larger countries. It's not a message that would encourage EU cohesiveness. Externally it would indicate that the EU's consistent position up to now has been a bluff and that the EU will cave at the last minute if brinkmanship is used. Not a good precedent when there are future trading arrangements and political crises to be negotiatied. I really can't see the EU making blunders on such a scale for the sake of a deal with the UK that might very well collapse anyway. The EU have to think long term here. The UK should be thinking long term but don't seem to be able to see beyond the next 24 hours. I would sincerely hope you are right, but after the banking crisis when it comes down to cold hard economics I would not be that sure on EU cohesiveness.
swampgas wrote: » The EU caving on the backstop would do the EU lots of reputational damage, internally and externally. Internally, it would be a message that smaller countries will be thrown under the bus at the last minute if it suits the majority or the larger countries. It's not a message that would encourage EU cohesiveness. Externally it would indicate that the EU's consistent position up to now has been a bluff and that the EU will cave at the last minute if brinkmanship is used. Not a good precedent when there are future trading arrangements and political crises to be negotiatied. I really can't see the EU making blunders on such a scale for the sake of a deal with the UK that might very well collapse anyway. The EU have to think long term here. The UK should be thinking long term but don't seem to be able to see beyond the next 24 hours.
Imreoir2 wrote: » I don't think a review is about getting something better later that is not available now, I think its purpose is to provide a little additional vagueness to help TM to sell her deal, and allow her MP's a little more cover in grudgingly accepting it. To any criticism of the deal, just say 'Ahh, but we have won the power to review the deal' or some other phrase to make it seem as if the UK can rewrite the deal at will. This is obviously not true, but that does not mean that the press and polititions can't pretend it is, those who bother to understand the detail will know it is BS, but there are few enough of us about. When dealing with a population who by and large neither understand nor really care about such details, but who can be whipped up into a frenzy should the deal not seem as red, white and blue as they feel they deserve, some vagueness and BS is better than nothing for a PM trying to sell a deal.
brickster69 wrote: » The EU know full well the Brexiteers would rip up the withdrawal agreement at a moment's notice if the way was clear for them to do it [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How could the UK rip up the signed withdrawal agreement, how is it possible ?[/font]
First Up wrote: » It was EU cohesiveness and cold hard economics that rescued us from a mess of our own making. The same for Greece.
charlie14 wrote: » I would seriously worry if what she is lookijg for is a third party review. They very rarely if ever favour one side over the other. I really do not see where we we`re getting with the present suggestion without clarification whether along with staying in the CU like the rest of Britain, NI is also remaining in the SM.
Strazdas wrote: » Once out of the EU, the UK could start claiming that any 'agreement' with the EU is not worth the paper it's written on, as the UK would be a non EU member and therefore not bound by its rules. Rumour has it that the reason the likes of Raab are so anxious to avoid the backstop is so they can get the UK out of the temporary customs union thing ASAP after Brexit (and to hell with the Irish border in other words).
charlie14 wrote: » First Up wrote: » It was EU cohesiveness and cold hard economics that rescued us from a mess of our own making. The same for Greece. It didn`t do us a lot of good in July 2012 when cold hard economics took precedence over Enda Kenny`s "game changer" though.
Spook_ie wrote: » But surely a review shouldn't be favouring either side?
charlie14 wrote: » In theory it shouldn`t but if it is a review by a third party would you see it just simply coming down in favour of one side rather that coming up with a compromise ?
An Claidheamh wrote: What did he say Ireland were f#+ked on relation to?
Spook_ie wrote: » Don't see any compromise between EU and UK so far so 3rd party might be the best option.
First Up wrote: » Oh, I think we've done OK out of it.
charlie14 wrote: » First Up wrote: » Oh, I think we've done OK out of it. The "game changer" or "seismic shift" in July 2012 quote was Enda Kenny assuming that the separation of banking and national debt would apply to Ireland only to be told it would not apply retrospectively. Nothing personal. Just hard cold business.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » I think the idea that was being put forward is that more than enough Labour will vote Yes to the deal to cover the amount of Tory and DUP MPs who will vote No. The Tories have already started approaching them as we know. The logic being (simplistically) 'you hate Corbyn, the deal isn't terrible, so why not just ignore the whip for the good of the country'. The flaw here is that if Corbyn/Momentum have the 'Blairites' onside (Starmer, SKinnock, Chuck) then it becomes much harder to defy the whip. If you do then on the biggest vote of this parliament you've made yourself out to be deeply unloyal to both the current leadership and the potential future leadership, not a good move at all. And it does seem on this issue that Corbyn will go along with what Starmer decides on his 6 tests. I'm probably explaining my thoughts on it really badly.
First Up wrote: » And rightly so.
charlie14 wrote: » If this also actually does comes down to the level of cold hard economics I doubt you would feel the same.
