View wrote: » Nope, this kind of shyte is why we need to clearly state we will roll out the barbed wire after Brexit day, join Schengen and start making legal provisions for doing this. It is precisely because we have given the impression that a hard border is completely unthinkable to us that Brexiters believe they can get away with this shyte. So long as they think we will do anything to avoid a hard border, they believe that we will eventually capitulate if they just prove awkward enough. To their mind, they don’t need to compromise if we are going to cave sooner or later to avoid a hard border.
Bit cynical wrote: » But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour whilst maintaining the appearance of being tough on the border at home.
J Mysterio wrote: » Ian Dunt is getting pretty blunt https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090365295150141442
May had promised something she could not specify and which had already been ruled out. And not only that: she had shot her own deal in the heart. It was No.10 which said the border in Ireland had to be kept open. It was No.10 which asked for it to cover the whole of the UK. Now, after all that negotiation, she is going to go back to the EU and demand that they destroy the accomplishments she herself secured. It is insane. It is a degree of contortion which would be remarkable if it weren't so ghastly. But in a way, it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer. But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase. That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy. On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking. This is as bleak a day as we have had in the entire Brexit process. All roads now seem blocked. MPs won't back an extension to Article 50. They won't back May's deal. And they won't back no-deal. They've opted for fairy tales over action. Things are looking very bad indeed.
Bit cynical wrote: » But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour.
View wrote: » Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.
briany wrote: » So, to sum up - Parliament can find a majority on a condition that's already been rejected by the EU. What alternative arrangements regarding the border can May propose, with two months to go to get them ready, that the EU would agree to? Are there any? There can't be. The UK would have proposed them by now as the backstop wasn't even something they wanted in the first place (or at least not since the 2017 GE).
briany wrote: » The delicious kicker is that the other passing amendment - that the UK must not leave without a deal - is only advisory. And when the UKgovernment reminds us of this on no-deal Brexit day, everyone would do well to remind them it was an advisory referendum that started this whole mess.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Not a numerically significant group, but European Greens press release:
Paranoid Bob wrote: » Why do you say the condition has been rejected by the EU? The EU and Ireland have always said that the backstop is only required until there is an agreed alternative that does not require a hard border. The Brady amendment is about replacing the backstop with an alternative arrangement that does not require a hard border. ... all the UK govt has to do now is explain the alternative that does not require a hard border and everyone is happy! Plus, of course, the brexiteers have promised that it would be easy to use 'technology' to avoid a hard border.
it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer.
blanch152 wrote: » Which British MP would you take instead of her?
downcow wrote: » Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected. Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly
downcow wrote: » There’s no comparison. Both parties said they would abide by what the people said in advisory referendum. No one has said that about the advisory vote tonight. They can’t commit to both as they are opposed to each other.
BorneTobyWilde wrote: » Irish Government, '' no room to move on '' back stop'' it's in deal and deal is not getting reopened, its there to avoid a hard border'' EU '' Not reopening Brexit deal, it was agreed and signed by all parties, back stop remains to avoid hard border'' But how on earth can they both say this when a No Deal leads to a hard border. Seems they have no choice, reopen Brexit deal, or it's no deal and a hard border ! Answer is obvious,, reopen deal and work back stop out so that everyone is happy, no one wants a hard border so it can't be difficult to agree something when all parties are on same page and want the same thing.
charlie14 wrote: » Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?
ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: » It was over to the EU for 10min . Now back to the UK for 59 days
Paranoid Bob wrote: » Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way. The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.
charlie14 wrote: » For that to occur then will NI not have to remain in the CU until such alternative arrangements are in place and are acceptable to the EU would it not ?
hotmail.com wrote: » The Medieval practices within the so called debates is completely ridiculous. Referring to each as the Right honourable etc. Is this democracy?
