nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

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.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

As in any divorce,why should the EU make it easy for the UK to leave?-the brexiteers are foolish to think the EU would have waved the UK off into the sunset merrily cherry picking as they go-so the EU wouldn't be forcing the UK to stay,just not rolling over.

They shouldn't. If they did, it would also embolden the sceptics who would say we should go now as well.

The EU have not generated any more euro-sceptics through their performance in Brexit thus far. Possibly largely down to Barnier and how he has chose the right words to speak whenever he does say something. They want to get to a place where they are on good terms with their ex but not at the cost of other existing relationships. The real life marriage divorce comparison is very apt in many ways. Not least in explaining why there needs to be a WA and a divorce bill.

Commanchie

Border issue text has been drafted and agreed.

listermint

Rte News

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1062373708684234752

So some agreement at least

Tell me how

Commanchie wrote: »

Border issue text has been drafted and agreed.

3rd time lucky? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

kowtow

Commanchie wrote: »

Border issue text has been drafted and agreed.

Tony Connolly tweet certainly seems to be taken seriously by the market... sterling making new highs now (although text only said to be "stable..".... one customs union... review mechanism.. some deeper provisions for NI)

prawnsambo

Don't get your hopes up folks. This has to get past the cabinet and that's where the skin and fur will start flying.

kowtow

prawnsambo wrote: »

Don't get your hopes up folks. This has to get past the cabinet and that's where the skin and fur will start flying.

I think this is going to get past cabinet in the final analysis. The content has been obvious enough for some time so we may have already heard all the shouting and wailing we are going to hear. It's very difficult to see how any resignation at this point is going to change the actual trajectory of events although it might well satisfy a point of principle.

As for Parliament... more difficult but once again I think it will end up getting through with support from both sides of the house - not because anybody particularly supports it but because there is no other realistic option except no deal, and the risks of being seen to force a no deal Brexit are unpalatable (other than for the ERG etc.)

Kermit.de.frog

DUP in 3, 2, 1...

Panrich

I'm worried that RTE and Tony Connolly might be setting up a reprise of last December by publicising an agreement before the pen is put to paper.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

3rd time lucky? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

DUP in 3, 2, 1...

Cut out the one-liners please.

Leroy42

Panrich wrote: »

I'm worried that RTE and Tony Connolly might be setting up a reprise of last December by publicising an agreement before the pen is put to paper.

It is Connolly and RTE's job to report on things they find out. The issue with December was that TM had not discussed it with the DUP. Even if RTE had not tweeted, the DUP would have thrown a stink when they did find out.

Agreement would have been as meaningless.

If any proposed deal now falls it is not because RTE or anyone got the scoop.

listermint

Panrich wrote: »

I'm worried that RTE and Tony Connolly might be setting up a reprise of last December by publicising an agreement before the pen is put to paper.

I doubt RTE nor Tony are aware of this ahead of the DUP....

Its up to the DUP where this goes

ARNOLD J RIMMER

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1062378955586629633

I wonder will everyone stick to there guns in a 1-2-1

Hurrache

Panrich wrote: »

I'm worried that RTE and Tony Connolly might be setting up a reprise of last December by publicising an agreement before the pen is put to paper.

They said there's an agreed text, not that there's an agreement, which is a completely different thing altogether.

Frank Bullitt

So, and please forgive me on this, if the text on the boarder is agreed, May still has to get her cabinet etc to fully agree?

So while this sounds good, it could still be shot from the sky. Is that about right?

ARNOLD J RIMMER

BBC reporter saying :

"Understand that DUP have not seen the text yet, so as yet unknown whether it crosses any of the DUP’s “red lines”

Hurrache

Yip, neither the Brexiters or Remainers seem to be happy with what's happening, so she'll have dissent on both sides.

Silent Running

If there is an agreed text on the border, would Coveney have been given the option to read through it before it was agreed?

Leroy42

Gintonious wrote: »

So, and please forgive me on this, if the text on the boarder is agreed, May still has to get her cabinet etc to fully agree?

So while this sounds good, it could still be shot from the sky. Is that about right?

Yes, correct, but in essence TM has agreed the WA and as such the cabinet, and then parliament, have to approve.

The alternative is to reject and thus a No Deal.

Commanchie

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

BBC reporter saying :

"Understand that DUP have not seen the text yet, so as yet unknown whether it crosses any of the DUP’s “red lines”

The DUP have nailed their colours to the mast regards this, they will not budge and not on the grounds that this is the best deal, they simply want to Bolster the union and feel a border in the Sea will streghten calls for a border poll.

Kermit.de.frog

So to get my head around this.

This implies that regardless of whatever happens NI would remain in the SM and large parts of the CU effectively in perpetuity...either if GB diverges or the FTA, when it comes, is not deep enough to prevent a hard border?

That's my reading based on RTE's report.

prawnsambo

Silent Running wrote: »

If there is an agreed text on the border, would Coveney have been given the option to read through it before it was agreed?

I would imagine so. Would be a major problem if it went through the cabinet only for us to reject it.

Professor Moriarty

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So to get my head around this.

This implies that regardless of whatever happens NI would remain in the SM and large parts of the CU effectively in perpetuity...either if GB diverges or the FTA, when it comes, is not deep enough to prevent a hard border?

That's my reading based on RTE's report.

That's my reading too. It seems like a de facto backstop.

kowtow

I'd say there are a few in Parliament now wishing that they hadn't made such a fuss over having a "meaningful vote".

Things were much simpler when treaties were treaties and left to the Executive.

Hurrache

Suggestions that the regulatory border is down the Irish sea, that'll be the DUP put. The EU have said they don't expect a deal any time soon anyway.

Panrich

Hurrache wrote: »

They said there's an agreed text, not that there's an agreement, which is a completely different thing altogether.

Presumably both sides have come to an agreement on this agreed text. :rolleyes:

barry181091

https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1062384438926065664

Here we go!

Professor Moriarty

Panrich wrote: »

Presumably both sides have come to an agreement on this agreed text. :rolleyes:

The negotiators have agreed a text. It's now up to the 28 governments to form an agreement.

Hurrache

Panrich wrote: »

Presumably both sides have come to an agreement on this agreed text. :rolleyes:

Yes, that's what I said, but it does not equate to an agreement.

listermint

Hurrache wrote: »

Yes, that's what I said, but it does not equate to an agreement.

no one here has stated that is has?

Why point out the obvious..