UKC

I see last night's manoeuvring in Parliament as the government's second last throw of the dice.

The tories, aided by 14 Labour MPs voting down the Cooper/Grieve ammendment, decided instead to embark on a piece of collective self delusion by deciding they can go back to Brussels and get a solution to the impossible problem of the Irish border.

The tories will get nothing of substance back from Brussels on NI. Regardless, on Valentines day they will offer their polished turd of a deal back to Parliament and if Parliament has any integrity it will reject it. Certainly Corbyn will be offered nothing when he sits down with May and so Labour opposition to the deal is almost guaranteed. Having run out of options and staring no deal in the face there will be only one option remaining to the government a second referendum to let the people of the UK decide between the governments deal or remaining in the EU.

The alternative, pushing through no deal in face of overwhelming opposition from both Parliament and the people *will* result in serious civil unrest. However a few burned out department stores pale into insignificance compared to the damage Theresa May and the great and good of the tory party will do to people's faith in government, the consequences of which may well be Northern Ireland and Scotland leaving the UK.

The government must not put a partisan interest in party unity above democracy.

I hope you are right but I am becoming less convinced that we will get a second referendum. I reckon that something may be fudged to get May's deal through roughly in the shape it is now, and probably with Corbyn's help to get round the nutters in the ERG.

On a related topic - I find James O'Brien's persistent question, which he asking asking again this morning, and which none of the other reporters appear to be asking, is a very good one...

Why do the hardcore Brexiters fear the Irish backstop so much, when they are the same people that say an Irish border solution is simple - meaning the backstop won't be needed.

Alan

We're heading for no-deal, and the death of the country.

Honestly, kill me now

The Irish border solution is only easy if the EU wants it to be.

You are probably right that a version of May's deal will eventually proceed. Otherwise most likely a no deal exit.  The consequences of no deal will not be enough to prevent a conservative government after the next election.  I expect the EU will wish to negotiate a system to avoid it having to force a hard border onto Ireland.

Can I ask why you think the current deal is a "turd"?

I don't see a second referendum being the only option at all. Neither of the two main parties support it. Just because there is no majority for any of the other options does not mean that one will suddenly appear for a second referendum that currently has next to no support in Parliament.

Because the hardcore brexiter solution to the Irish border is to put up border posts again, which they know wouldn’t be acceptable to the EU but they also suspect wouldn’t lead to the return of terrorism. See JRM for details.

EDIT: just added n’t to would, making “wouldn’t lead to return of terrorism” which is what I intended to write.

Well the only successful amendment vote for a possibly realistic position was Speelman's: that we should not face no deal (although non legally binding). Cooper's delay no deal amendment vote: against legally blocking no deal tfor 2019, if May fails to get a deal, was lost due to 14 Labour MPs voting against... as the Guardian describes, as part of some mad tragedy

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/30/brexit-political-clas...

"But the obloquy should not belong to the Tories alone. MPs had the chance to prevent the national cataclysm of a no-deal crash-out last night – and they refused to take it. They rejected Yvette Cooper’s amendment, which would have made such an exit impossible, thanks in part to 14 Labour rebels who concluded that even a slight delay to Brexit – just a few months – poses more of a threat to their constituents than a crash-out that could see shortages of food and medicine, with more warnings along those lines coming this morning from the leader of a major hospitals group. The future public inquiry into this horror show will damn those 14 especially."

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2019/jan/29/how-did-you...

I can't believe our Parliament, even as dysfunctional as it currently is, has just voted for what amounts to unicorns (the chance is close to zero of the EU dropping the backstop) probably because a split govenment and the DUP ideologues fear Corbyn more than no deal. 

As a remainer disaffected with the political leadership within the EU, I don't think I'm the only one who thought  May's deal was probably worse than any other possibility on the table, except crashing out in April ( but I do prefer a delayed no deal where the departure date is moved back a year or more to sort infrastructure issues, compared to the May deal).  Sure the May deal suits an increasingly desperate business community (OK its worse than the EU but hell it's much less worse than no deal and look at the time!) but I just can't see it as politically sustainable with the leave or remain voting public to be caught for an indefinable time in some kind of economically poorer half EU legally binding limbo. That almost everyone who voted has been sold a dud would become apparent very quickly and could lead to worsening division and major unrest. In the meantime the clock is ticking and the can has been kicked a month closer to the deadline.

It’s got an easy answer - we’d have to trust the EU to be reasonable, since we can’t leave it without their consent.

In what way is the EU not being reasonable in its insistence on maintaining the conditions apparently important for peace in NI?

I think it is actually we can't exit the backstop arrangement without both parties agreeing that the customs problem is solved, which seems pretty reasonable for a negotiation, and incredibly easy according to the hardcore brexiters.

Alan

Yes.

If the EU want it to be.  It gives them the power (which they do not have now) to keep us in the arrangement perpetually.

A referendum does provide parliament with the information it needs to choose a path forward rather than defaulting to the one they have chosen not to pursue but until they stop pretending they have options they don't have and that they don't have options they do have it isn't yet on the cards. That realisation will dawn but whether it dawns soon enough and clear enough...

Our parliament while the whips' authority holds is clearly no longer capable of acting rationally in the national interest.

jk

Yes this was utterly bizarre. Chuka Umunna gave an excellent account of why it was a really useful amendment last night. He explained that May is hamstrung by the fact that she has to appeal to two conflicting groups in her party that are totally at odds, therefore she constantly takes this ridiculous middle ground option that gets us nowhere. If this amendment had passed it would have enabled motions to be brought that would enable people to vote as they felt, independent of their party and position so we could actually find out really what people thought. 

Alan

Your brexit vote gave the EU this power over us, this is what your vaunted sovereignty looks like in the cold light of day. You were warned.

jk

It doesn't really, though, does it? It just commits the UK to a deal where that's true.

Why couldn't the UK parliament just pass legislation later in order to break that deal if it was being used to hold the UK prisoner, so landing us in a situation much the same as having no-deal Brexit now?

Theresa May clearly isn't one for listening, dealing, discussing, consulting or compromising. And she wants her deal passed.

I think she's just running the clock down until it's time for a final confrontation where she forces parliament to choose between her deal, or something totally unpalatable to them.

She has two options with that - force the moderates to choose between her deal or no deal, or force the hard brexiteers to choose between her deal or no brexit.

I don't know which she'd go for; she might well still be weighing up which one is more likely to succeed.

So I think the most likely outcome is some version of May's deal, followed by no deal, followed by cancelling brexit for now (which clearly wouldn't be the end of it).

I can't see where a second referendum will come from - whatever some people want to believe it seems pretty clear that neither the Tories nor Labour support that option, and we're out of time anyway.

The idea is that a second referendum would be binding and accepted by Parliament. Remain or accept the negotiated deal. Certainly that's Dominic Greaves' position and one that is fair and final.

Right, no international law is anything more than a commitment.

It’s not the same situation, choosing to leave the EU doesn’t break a treaty, it withdraws using a provision in that treaty.

But you'd break a treaty if it was specifically being used to screw you over, right?

It might be final; it's not necessarily 'fair'; it might actually be a further fudge. (And I'll stop my alliterations there ...)

The neatest idea I've read recently (it was contained in a letter to The Guardian) is to suspend the current process, to allow the 'leavers' in Parliament to negotiate a deal (which could of course be 'no deal'), and then to present the option of that deal along with the option of remain in a second referendum. Now that does seem fair.

To be really fair you'd also have to be transparent on what the remain option means too.  In theory it's the pre-brexit status quo. In reality, our relationship and influence with Europe has been damaged by the brexit process, and the status-quo clearly isn't what the people wanted as they voted leave in the first place. 

Now negotiated deal vs. a revised vision for Britain in the EU, that would be an interesting referendum. 

Its all very, very depressing.

I suspect that the EU will not bend, leaving yet another vote to either accept May's deal or crash out without a deal - these are the two possibilities I see left, neither of which are good. I'm not convinced, if it does come to this, which way Parliament would vote - a bad deal is better than no deal afterall, sigh.

We're doomed, doomed I tell ye, doomed!

I think Parliament are likely to vote down May's deal for a second time. I don't see the UK getting anything of substance out of Brussels and if not the DUP won't support the tories.

It'll be her last throw of the dice. After that, what's left? 

No deal Brexit, probably - it's the option that doesn't require parliament to agree to pass anything before it can happen.

Oh I understand that but until parliament stops pursuing unrealistic dreams and recognises the stark and unavoidable three options they must but cannot without new information choose between there is not sufficient support for seeking that new information whether it be in the form of an election or referendum. It is currently easier after all the pandering and lies for them to keep grasping at unicorns and blaming the other side (across the despatch box or the channel) for their failure to deliver the undeliverable than it is to acknowledge the truth: brexit delivers nothing of value and it compromises Britain. It might yet remain easier to keep pretending that isn't the case, they have no choices left until it's genuinely too late.

Once again we just wait while May wipes another two weeks off the clock to pump up the pressure on parliament to resuscitate her moribund deal.

jk

What like agreeing to pay £39 billion that we owe as ongoing and previous commitments but deciding now to use this as some sort of bargaining chip.

A bit like agreeing to sell your house and threatening the building society with not paying the balance unless they give you a good deal on a new mortgage. How likely is that good new deal if you didn't actually pay up the balance?

Alan

I was thinking more along the lines of the Good Friday Agreement, which I believe is also a treaty in international law.

Very true, and quite a bit more important.

Alan

"The alternative, pushing through no deal in face of overwhelming opposition from both Parliament and the people *will* result in serious civil unrest."

I am intrigued as to why this idea is gaining ground as an accepted reality. there was mention the other week of the army being on stand-by. why would a poor brexit outcome prompt someone to attack a high street store? I won't be doing that, and I am sure no-one I know will either. I am sure a few demonstrations may get out of hand on the fringes but that is not the same as serious civil unrest

it's simply not British for one thing, we're not bl**dy French!

I can't speak for Eric, but I imagine that his reasons are not dissimilar to those given here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/01/29/amendment-apocalypse-spineless-m...

Extract:

"It was as pitiful an exhibition as we've ever seen from them: a masterclass in cowardice. Even now, years after the result, they are petrified of being seen to somehow undermine Brexit. Their mania is so severe that they are prepared to sabotage the mechanisms which would achieve what they themselves say should take place."

Sure, sure...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14436499

I don't agree with your analogy.

The divorce bill is part of the withdrawal agreement . Parliament won't sign off the withdrawal agreement so in the event the EU aren't prepared to make changes to the withdrawal agreement, (why they won't put a time limit on the backstop I.dont know) then we go out without an agreement. So how do we then owe the EU 40 billion if we can't get an agreement through. 

It's more like agreeing to buy a house but then noticing the dodgy back door and broken garden wall and deciding to not proceed with exchanging contracts. 

I'm not sure it's at all clear the 2016 vote was all about Europe though it's quite convenient to pretend it was.

For quite a few people I talked to on the streets it was about Cameron, Osborn, Westminster, austerity and coal (Yorkshire), for others it was all about state aid for steelworks and foreign ownership (remember the background to the campaign?). For another disappointingly significant minority I hoped I'd seen the last of in the 90s it was all about 'the pakis'. While it's hard to say for sure, it's a long time ago and I met a lot of people who weren't always easy to talk with but if had to pick the one 'thing' it was about for the biggest group of the leave-inclined, above all else even 'immigration' it was the NHS. It certainly wasn't all about Europe, trading terms, constitutional arrangements or the merits of different electoral systems, where power lies in Westminster or what our Irish border should look like.

Revised in what way? Reform is always popular while it is also nebulous, do we mean a tighter knit more federal Europe, a looser union or perhaps a two tier union with the Eurozone becoming more federal and the rest loosening their bonds... Whatever, it is not ours alone to change nor realistically is it within our ability to deliver significant reform in a time frame relevant to the crisis we currently face.

jk

That is another brilliant, but frightening, article. I am sure it will be interpreted as project fear though. 

Like the guy on the news the other day who managed to come up with the following sentence about the supermarkets warning about food shortages ...

"It's all scaremongering, it will do us good anyway, teach us to appreciate what we had."

As a single sentence to encapsulate the idiot Brexit mentality, you can't really beat this.

Alan

granted we had the tragedy of Jo Cox, but that was a lone attack - which did not spark disorder

It isn't that though. This £39 Billion has nothing to do with the withdrawal agreement. It was decided separately in 2017 as something that we owed because of commitments already made. Things like pensions for our nationals who work for the Commission and half-finished projects that need to be completed. 

Because then it wouldn't be a back stop.

Alan

Ian Dunt's palpable fury has strangely been one of the few comforting things out there for me as of late. It's good to know that it's not us going crazy.

An earlier thread asked about the positive benefits of Brexit. I'd add this: it flushes out the complete idiots. Whether or not any good will come of it is another question of course. 

Yes. I follow him on Twitter - he does some very good live-blogging of debates in Parliament like this. I do worry about his blood pressure though. 

I was responding simply to your suggestion that civil disorder isn't British - that's just a daft thing to say!

I don't have any particular opinion on how likely civil disorder is in the coming months, it's something that could happen if people feel they're really suffering or if they have trouble getting things they need, but that might not come to pass.

In the short term because inevitable no-deal shortages in the shops, perhaps alongside banking restrictions and devaluation driven inflation will harshly reduce our quality of life making existing inequalities starker. Longer term because businesses will close and the massaging of employment figures will not long gloss over the increasing number of desperate people with time on their hands because they were lied to and let down by cowards and charlatans.

I'm sure but what will you do if your bank account is restricted, inflation has eroded the value of what you can withdraw and what you're still earning, the cupboards are bare and you're out of options? Unlikely maybe but what if? Now what if you're not just an isolated unfortunate former Nissan employee say but one of millions in the same boat because the people you see on your TV and papers, people still in their well paid jobs, still clinging to power, lied to you and palpably let you down? Are you absolutely sure you'll be so sanguine about your collapsing living standards then? I'm a pretty laid back guy but I don't think I will be, I suspect I will be absolutely fu*king raging.

jk

If only we had done this before triggering article 50

Nothing is owed under the current treaty if we leave, so no, nothing like that at all.

Skog - the Good Friday agreement isn’t breached by leaving.  I would leave such a treaty, yes - but first we’d have to give it a few years to give them a chance.  Making it and breaking it the next day isn’t reasonable.  Signing up intending to break it is worse.

That was the point I was hoping to get to - the backstop is there to force everyone to have a really good go at sorting the problem, and to make it very difficult to walk away without doing so.

If it was being used belligerently to trap the UK indefinitely, as some seem to fear, the UK would just leave it, and wouldn't lose much face in doing so - but they'd have to be seen to have genuinely tried to sort it out first. And I don't see what's wrong with that.

in reply to Skog: - my comment about not being British was tongue in cheek

in reply to JK:- if what you say comes to pass, then maybe I will pick up my flaming torch and storm my local aldi. Our rapid descent into a 3rd world hell hole of a country seems unlikely though. The 2008 crisis was billed as Armageddon in some quarters. no riots and lynchings there. the millennium bug was supposed to bring life as we knew it to a standstill. bugger all happened

I am not saying that there will not be great hardship and problems abound, but hyperbole about riots on the street is the sort of unhelpful hype that got us into this mess to begin with

Why do we need a hard border with France?

Channel 4 fact check and several notable legal minds disagree - https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-can-we-avoid-paying-the-3...

Only that genius negotiator David Davis and his equally impressive successor Dominic Raab appear to agree with you.

Alan

You're wrong. See https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/

Wishful thinking. Everything that has been done so far has been done for the sake of the Tory party. Why would they change now?

Enough said - Dominic Raab, 'the idiot's idiot'... (Ian Dunt)

As did crashing out of the EU with no transition, little inadequate preparation and no plan three years ago.

Because it was fixed, not ignored until too late.

What do you think would have happened if instead of bailing the banks out they'd been allowed to collapse, had the ATM's actually been shut down and people's savings spirited away in volume?

I think it's hard to avoid the fact people are very angry and people are going to be hurt by brexit. Hurting, polarised, angry people who realise they've been conned, combined with summer... it's not a threat to acknowledge this is potentially a serious problem.

jk

Oddly if you read a bit about the evolution of the Leave campaign, this is pretty much precisely what they did about ten years ago. Coming up with a phased ten-year plan to leave the EU with gradual change over of treaties and agreements. If actually is by far the most logical suggestion I have read to do something like this - still not as good as remaining IMHO but totally feasible to implement.

Then they ditched it all because they knew they could never sell it to the electorate and preferred to leave without a plan, which is where we are now.

Alan

I guess the question is about whether the EU have negotiated the backstop in good faith. They could keep us unfairly locked into the backstop arrangement as a vassal state. But would they, if we were able to devise a solution to the Irish border problem, or negotiate a deal that renders it irrelevant?

Personally, I don't think it's in the EU's interest to impose a Versailles-style humiliation upon it's closest neighbour and trading partner.

See Channel Four Fact check opinion linked to above. Whatever it is, I would be impressed by someone who can sell this as a good thing to do before turning around and setting out on negotiations with the rest of the world.

To quote Ian Dunt...

"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."

Alan

Yes, I've seen the Flexit proposal - a genuine considered approach which included a long time in the EEA while we disengage from all the treaties.

And I've seen the Dominic Cummings blog where he deliberately identified that the details should never be discussed during the referendum. Good politics but very bad government.

But I'm still annoyed that they were allowed to get away with the approach of not explaining. Firstly - on the question, secondly - during the referendum and thirdly - before triggering article 50.

Even now, there is still a strongly held view that Brexiters know exactly what they want in every detail, and it is only self serving remainer politicians who are keeping them from it.

I'm amazed by the ineptitude from the moment the referendum was announced but the work done to get an agreed deal is almost of another order of incompetence.

Wasn't it obvious that a cross party group was needed at the outset to lessen the problems of one party rejecting almost anything another party suggests? It would still be difficult because there are plenty of members of the Tories or Labour who can't agree among themselves, but it would have had a better chance than the current situation. 

Also wouldn't it have been more sensible to get an agreement in the House and take that to Brussels rather than talk to Brussels first, get an agreement with the EU and then try to get agreement in the House?

I can find very little to be happy about with politics here now.

Dave

The UK owes the 39 G€ or whatever to the EU due to treaties and agreements entered before deciding to leave (there are also obligations the other way round, but that is roughly the net sum accepted by both sides). The WA just defines how and when these debts are calculated and then settled.

Not having the procedure for repayment agreed upon does not make the obligation go away. The issue will simply pop up at the next negotiation. From the EU side it would not even be worth trying to recoup the money by arbitration. Too much hassle and no need, it can always be the first thing on the table if the UK asks for so much as the time of day.

This is why the idea of using this money as a blackmail / bargaining chip is so bizarre as a negotiation tactic: The UK will eventually need EU market access, in whatever form. In this it will need the good will of the EU side especially after having left without a deal and thus requiring multiple emergency sectorial agreements (e.g. air travel, food checks, ....).

Why would anyone even remotely sane piss off their counterpart just before having to negotiate from a weaker position? Also, being seen to renege on treaty obligations (and it would not even matter whether this were justified or not, it is the impression that counts) is a clever wheeze just before opening negotiations on plenty other trade deals.

I am reasonably sure that even Brexiter politicians advocating no deal are aware of this, whatever they claim for the entertainment of their supporters.

CB

I think humiliation is inevitable. It's a consequence of deliberately failing to manage expectations in the run up to and the aftermath of the referendum and the longstanding dishonest conflation of domestic and EU issues. I fear you're right to draw a parallel with Versailles.

jk

I am not arguing about whether or not it would be 'a good thing to do.'  But the fact of the matter is that "The [monetary] settlement was agreed politically by the EU and the UK in a joint report following the first phase on withdrawal negotiations. The joint report has been turned into legal text in the Withdrawal Agreement, which will become legally binding once it has been approved by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament." (My italics.)  See https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8039

The backstop is UK-wide at the request of the UK. This was a significant concession from the EU. On that basis it would be hard to argue that the EU didn’t negotiate the backstop in good faith

i think the real problem is not that the EU wants, cunningly, to use to backstop to bind the UK into long-term vassalage. The backstop is pretty bad for the EU as well - they would be outsourcing part of their customs and border  controls to a third country. 

The real problem is that there is no solution to the Irish border problem which everyone can accept. The options are:

1. border infrastucture

or

2. single market membership & customs union for all UK

or

3. Single market membership and customs union for NI and a border inthe Irish Sea.

No amount of crafty treaty drafting or technological wizardry (that exists / is likely to exist in the foreseeable future) can avoid this. 

Absolutely. I don't think we should be accused of being wise after the event. You and I may not have been able to see what's coming but we're not professional politicians who are thinking and talking about this 8 hours a day. It was only a matter of simple arithmetic to see that May would not get a deal through Parliament without the agreement of a large proportion of the opposition but she and Cameron before her, decided to put party before country. Whether Labour would have behaved any better we'll never know but the fact is that the leaders of the conservative party have put self interest before national interest. That makes me angry.

Regarding what happens when MayDeal v1.0002 is rejected by Parliament and she is left looking at no deal or no Brexit. When she loses the respect of 2/3 of her PLP, when she is faced with the prospect of many of her cabinet resigning at the prospect of the UK actually going ahead with an act of self harm I would hope that even if she still doesn't quite get it the bigger picture she will finally do what is expected of any leader of any democracy to do and put national interest first. That's why I think she'll go back to the country and ask us to decide between her deal or no Brexit even though it will damage her party.

In her defense, May would have been kicked out by the ERG if she’d tried a cross-party approach early on. And then we’d be lamenting the incompetence of Prime Minister Johnson....

Therein lies the possibility of disorder.  In the shambles that follows it woulf be perfectly acceptable to take it out on people like that for causing it.  Being old, though, I'd have to take into account my age his age and our relative builds and fitness. I don't have to be nice to people who do this to us

Where's Buzz Aldrin when you need him?

Christ, can you imagine that referendum? It'd be absolutely horrible. Much better to ask the people to choose between Remain and May's WA.

Sure there'll be the wailing of "BUT DEMOCRACY!" from the knuckle-draggers, but really it has a much better democratic mandate to put that question to the electorate, and is also a much safer decision to put to the public.

As with the original referendum, even putting No Deal as an option to voters undermines the argument that it'd be an absolute disaster, even if it would be an absolute disaster.

EDIT - oops, I read your post as "no deal" not "her deal". But I think my point still stands, with respect to no deal vs remain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_Raab

Dominic Raab - winner of international law prize, solicitor at linklaters (top law firm for those who’ve not heard of it) advising on international law, worked in Brussels advising on EU law.

Ian Dunt - political hack that agrees with you.

As has already been discussed at some length, it's quite possible to be simultaneously rather clever and a complete tool.

Jk

No, that “fact check” chose not to ask anyone else who didn’t agree with c4s view that leaving is bad.

The man is clearly a genius, I as he demonstrated as Brexit Secretary.

Kind of epitomises the level which most of the leave arguments have descended to. You can't find any evidence-based positive arguments any more, so the only response is to suggest that arguments against what you think must be biased, untrue or project fear.

Great quote I read yesterday - "It is amazing how quickly 'project fear' changes into 'the will of the people' when exposed to reality."

The leave arguments have become so defensive.

It is like that Digby Jones idiot on Newsnight yesterday. His "it will only be positive economically" and "no job will be at risk" before the referendum, has morphed into the blatant lie, “I actually campaigned for Brexit and I made it very clear in every speech I gave we would be economically worse off.”

Has he got no shame? How do you reconcile being on the same side as these lying shits?

Alan

You appear to be cleaving to Channels 4's interpretation because you agree with it (or perhaps want it to be true), while at the same time dismissing two interpretations - Full Fact's, and Parliament's own - which take the opposing view.

What does that say about the level of your own arguments?

..and as Brexit Secretary "hadn't quite understood" how reliant UK trade in goods is on the Dover-Calais crossing. 

I really wouldn't get blinded my baubles and prizes, nor underestimate the size of the grey areas in which 'top' law firms operate.

Digby Jones doubled down on the stupid claiming Fox was right "at the time" when he said the post Brexit trade deals would be easy but is "wrong now". It's as if time has exposed the bullshit but it's no ones fault.

https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1090587682453868544?s=19

Here’s some more lying shits and the lies they told, shovelled high into steaming piles of mendacity...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-p...

(yes, I posted it the other day, some dislikes as expected, but no Brexiters actually acknowledged the audacious scale and extent of their political cheerleaders’ problem with the truth....)

There is nothing on the Full Fact page that contradicts what Channel 4 Fact Check says and I don't disagree with Full Fact. As for Parliament - I am not aware of it making a ruling on this although I may have missed that. 

Alan

Pensions won't amount to much in the grand scheme of things. (But the EU bureauocrats certainly work hard on giving themselves a great pension deal) In essence I agree that Britain should pay off of its commitments to the EU. 39 billion is a hell of a lot of money though and I think we should be given an itemized receipt to see where that money is going. 

Why can't it be a time limited backstop? If there's no deal there will be no backstop anyway and inevitably a hard border will come into play. Something has to give.

Because it is designed to kick in if no alternative can be found. If it is time limited there’s no incentive to find and alternative, we just wait it out.

This is an interesting point but I read a very good analysis of Varadkars position here. Whilst it would clearly be very bad for him to be the pm who forced Ireland into no deal and a hard border, it would be worse for him to be the pm who gave in to the UK and accepted a watered down backstop. So domestic politics suggest he’ll hold out to the end.

Do you hold Liam Fox in equal esteem, despite his attempts to take from the public purse for his own benefit?  And despite his contempt for his country's security while at MOD?

From where I stand these are dishonest people who intend actions that will cause me and my country harm and I wish ruin on them jointly and severally and all their schemes.

And you as an apologist for them define yourself by that

You made a false claim about the £39 billion, saying that it was separate to the withdrawal agreement - simply factually incorrect.  The figure was agreed as part of that agreement, and as Barnier says "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".

Your "fact check" that you linked as support for your claim that it's an obligation quoted two people, only one of them is a lawyer.  It doesn't actually explain the law (ie the relevant facts).  It doesn't say that £39 billion is owed.  The non lawyer quoted is a remainer economist.  I wonder why they chose him as an expert on legal matters?  The other is at least a lawyer, albeit one who's never worked outside of academia.  Raab is another lawyer, who has worked in the relevant field.  Other lawyers advised the House of Lords before they wrote their report.  You, and c4, don't like his view, and the House Lords view, of course, it doesn't agree with yours.  The article's biased, and I'm saying it is because it quite clearly is.

This is what the House of Lords report they dismiss says.

"However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context."

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/125/12503.h...

You agreed with another assertion above - that leaving breaches the Good Friday Agreement.  Might be worth you reading the BBC article just put up on this...

It's designed to come into effect in the event that after the 2 year transition period we don't have a trade agreement with the EU. If the backstop was limited to 2 years that gives a full 4 years to work on a mutually satisfactory trade deal. If we trigger no deal and there won't be time to fart never mind work out a trade deal.

His priority is the EU, understandably so. And anyway, the EU will make him dance to their tune even if he wanted to do something different. Ireland is the stumbling block, no doubt about that. Theresa May must be kicking herself for throwing that snap election and having to put herself in hock to the DUP. It's been a disaster for her ever since.

This is the thing about experts (real ones, not economists), they're only experts within their field.

That is a true politicians answer, it totally dodges the question.

It's already difficult, the backstop is there to make it impossible.

We've had 2 years to try and find a solution, and I see no reason to believe that the EU want to find one.  You should only sign up to agreements that you intend to honour.  If something changes its reasonable to break the agreement, if nothing changes then breaking it is a sign that we're happy to sign up to agreements that we won't abide by, that we cannot be trusted.

I'm curious as to what Raab is actually an expert of. We can chalk up exhibit A) Bullshitting

https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/status/1090692705921978375

Law, specifically international law.

The muppet tweeting doesn’t understand how to look at law!  You don’t read Acts in full from start to finish.

I was referring to the House of Commons Library Research Briefing on the subject, published at https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk, to which I gave a link above. To repeat, it says that the monetary settlement you're referring to "will become legally binding once it has been approved by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament."

“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” - Dominic Raab, November

The man who resigned because he didn't agree with the terms of the deal he negotiated. 

Sorry, he's an idiot in the political sphere. Which is what we are talking about. 

I have no idea which answer to what question you are talking about. 

May spent two years trying to get her own cabinet to agree on what we wanted. Don't pin that timewasting on the EU. We have behaved appallingly in these negotiations and continue to do so. As per the "political hack" Ian Dunt, is there anything we've shown over the last two and a half years that says we're in any way a reliable country to do business with?

I make a mistake in one of my claims and you feast on it like a hyena around a wounded antelope. Meanwhile you ignore the massively more significant point made by many on this thread, including myself, that reneging on the payment is never going to get past day 1 of our negotiations with the EU when we want to get a new trade agreement, never mind the damage it will do to our international reputation. Like many of the 'no dealers' I bet you have probably made plans for where you are going to spend the £39 billion!

Alan

decent solutions were precluded by May from the word start when she adopted stupid "Red Lines" at the insistence of an undemocratically powerful group of Euro Sceptics

What she has done has only polarised and widened divisions as she has done everything for the small majority of leavers and nothing for the Remainers who balance most of the Leavers

You are somewhat overstating Raab’s CV:

- He won a student law prize; and

- He spent spent 4 years as a junior solicitor at Linklaters (he had only just qualified), where a small amount of his work involved the EU.

Overstating is the Brexit modus operandi. 

She hasn't even done everything for the small majority of leavers has she? It's been the loonies who've set her agenda all the way, because she is prioritising the interests of the Conservative Party over the country. 

Blaming the EU is the current Cunning Plan. 

[Edit] And on the subject of this particular Cunning Plan, Nick Cohen nails it here:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/this-is-brexits-la-la-land-moment/

Dead right - how do we stop this crap?

Given that the Mail and Express etc. will push this 'blame the EU' line for as long as the Brexiters keep spinning it, it's hard to stop. 

Fixed that for you

Sorry, I forgot...

here is a timely reminder of why failing to treat the Irish Border problem properly is important, even for those of us on this side of the water.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-47057539

I asked why Eric thought the current deal was a "turd", you ought to know that as you quoted it in your reply.

The article that you quoted appears to relate to the amendments that were debated this week rather than the deal itself.

Is it still called a "deal" when only one side agree to it?

It's still on offer so it's a deal, we just need our MPs to wake up to the fact that we are unlikely to do signifcantly better.

Maybe we should re-run the vote now that Labour have had it proven that they cannot use it to force an election?

Try including the post you were referring to next time.

I assumed Eric meant the whole farrago, including the efforts at patching up the deal. 

Given the sensitive & delicate situation it navigated, and the bitter hatred & violence it contained, I'd suggest it incumbent on Raab to read all the GFA before f*cking about with it.

I’m paraphrasing wiki, which I linked.  It’s all I know about his history.  He graduated oxford and then did his masters at Cambridge where he won a prestigious prize in the subject we’re talking about, international law.  They’re bloody good credentials. I don’t know his exact position, but I can see that he was a very high achiever in the relevant legal field at one of the best law firms.  Compared to Ian Dunt on this he’s Einstein talking about physics.

The law professor quoted also has good credentials, comparable to Raab, but she’s in a minority, Raab isn’t.  We are not legally obliged to pay anything.

The point I made was that we shouldn’t break treaties, and in response you said that we’d break a treaty if we don’t pay, and that we’re breaking the Good Friday agreement.  You’re wrong, and me saying so is being a hyena?

I’ve said on here before I don’t mind paying towards pensions, etc, but it’s important to appreciate we don’t have to - agreeing to is a concession.

Why?  So he can say he did?  He should read what’s relevant and take advice from colleagues and experts, which I presume he did.

Im not going to stick up for May’s dumb decisions, but there are two sides here.

I can’t see that we have.  We’ve agreed to effectively stay in without any say for another 2 years and that all EU citizens can stay, and we’ll pay the money they want.  That solves their funding gap and their citizens issue. Given that we’re leaving, what else would it be reasonable to expect?

The argument is basically that the EU want a permanent arrangement afterwards or else.  It was made clear to all that Tories, DUP, etc wouldn’t vote for it, the EU knew, May knew but the EU won’t budge so here we are.  Is it really so unacceptable that we can choose when we leave?  We must have that power taken or else?  Put in a clause that we can leave with notice and the deal goes through (which could be May’s plan, if she has one).

We’re going through a period of turmoil at the moment, that happens.  I can’t see that we’ve shown we’re unreliable, we’re sticking to all of our commitments.

"Presume" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

Yes. The EU27 is partially responsible for the time wasting. They should have forced the UK to accept the legal text of the withdrawal agreement in March last year. The EU27 has enabled the UK gov to waste too much time.

The UK gov asked for the 2 year extension and it was granted by the EU27 as part of the withdrawal agreement.

UK and EU27 sat together, went through the books and agreed on the net sum UK owed the EU27.

It is also your citizen's issue! Agreeing that citizen's rights are protected is not a favour, it is simply the only right thing to do.

The EU27 also expects the UK to hold up to its commitments made in the good friday agreement in all possible scenarios. And it wants that in writing now, because trust in the UK government is extremely low. This is surely reasonable from the EU27's point of view. As the people directly affected, namely those living in Northern Ireland, support the backstop and a majority of the Commons supports the GFA, I don't see why this should be a big problem.

The EU27 only want a permanent arrangement for NI. The UK gov wanted a lock-in for the rest of the UK in the customs union. The EU27 compromised and gave UK gov what it wanted.

Yes, UK unilaterally deciding to put up a hard border in NI is unacceptable to the EU27.

Only if the WA gets signed off in the house of commons. (or revocation, but that is unlikely).

WTAF? Does my irony meter need recalibrating?

One has been consistent from the start and the other couldn't even get agreement from their cabinet for two years.

You think the transition is for the EU's benefit?

That situation is entirely because of the impossibly restrictive red lines May chose. To keep a soft border in Ireland but give the EU confidence that it's customs union hasn't sprung a leak then a permanent arrangement is the only way to achieve that.

If this were a house sale we'd have been told to f*ck off long ago.

But Raab is a lawyer, not a scientist.  He's arguing his client's case not stating an objective opinion, let alone a fact.

FWIW, I read through his CV a long time ago, when I first became aware that there seemed to be a real life Alan B'Stard in parliament.  I can't account for the disparity between what it suggests about his ability and attitudes and what I see and hear from him.  I guess it shows that comparatively smart people can close their minds and be guided by opportunism and prejudice.

He's a living embodiment of why you should always interview job applicants and never rely only on their CV. 

It was s simple question that I was asking, why the hell would I need to quote another post?

It doesn't matter what Eric meant in his post my question quite obviously referred to the current deal and right now there is only one deal on offer.



 

We're a laughingstock. We voted for the obviously undeliverable and this is the direct consequence. We have a government that has wasted two years pursuing contradictions, lying to the public about what is realistic and what it costs.

jk

I stopped believing that ministers always took expert advice on specialist matters, especially European ones, when Theresa May stood up in parliament as Home Secretary and said that Abu Hamza had run out of time to appeal the ECHR decision allowing his extradition.

He hadn't, and he did.

Actually it appears that I have also overstated Raab's CV, he joined Linklaters in 1996, the year he graduated (not qualified), he wasn't admitted (qualified as a solicitor) until 2000, the year that he left Linklaters. It was a training contract.

Absolutely no need to be rude. I didn't know what you were referring to. A quote helps sometimes. 

I think the bit of time wasting that could be attributed to the EU is the refusal to allow parallel negotiations on withdrawal and future arrangements. 

However any any criticism of the EU in this is very much an amouse bouchée.

"amouse bouchée"

Nice!

I think exactly the opposite. The EU27 should have stopped negatiating in March last year until the house of commons voted for the backstop (and the rest of the WA). Then the current crisis in the HoC would have happened 9 months earlier, thereby wasting much less time.

The EU27 allowed May to fudge this issue way too long.

This is an even bigger mistake by the UK parliament. They should never have allowed the UK government to start the a50 procedure without a plan. It was clear at the time that May's red lines would lead to this mess. So parliament should have voted on the red lines before the negotiation. Similarly it was clear in Dec 2017 and definitely in Mar 2018 that parliament would have some problems with the backstop. So they should have taken control right then and either accept it or throw May out.

PS at Shani. I was not being ironic, but should have written responsible for about 10% instead of partially responsible. Most of the responsibility lies of course with the UK.

I'm still waiting for her to answer the question, "will we be better off, when we leave the EU?" at which point she usually goes on to say how good her deal is, compared to no deal, but never answers the question posed.

I doubt that one MP in a hundred had a clue what the implications of Art 50 were back then.

But they should have. I remember reading an article in a Dutch newspaper a couple of months after the referendum. It described the priorities of all the EU27 countries about brexit. It was all "maintaining unity", "integrity of the single market", "citizen's right" first and "trade relationship" later. (This was before the Irish convinced all the other that NI is a high-priority issue).

British expectations of getting a nice deal because EU27 could not do without them were so misguided.... For example, when it comes to business, the Dutch business lobby tries to convince the Dutch government to create high barriers in the trade between the UK and EU27. They reckon that once UK companies are no longer in the CU and the SM, it is best for Dutch business to accept more limited trading with the UK and thereby keep UK competitors at a serious disadvantage in the SM.

I know they should have but that's exactly the problem.  The vast majority of British politician neither know nor care what happens in Europe.  To know anything is regarded as dangerously bourgeois elitism.

anyone who tried to tell them was labelled a Project Fear by the demagogues

Did any of the Brexiteers mention the opportunities afforded by the EU-Japan trade agreement that has now come into force and from which we are by law to exit?

It was a plain and simple question asking what was wrong with the current deal>

Why did you think that you needed to understand what I was referring to?