One thing that got lost in yesterday's batch of defeats for May was the elder statesman of The Independent Group Ltd, Chuka Umunna, decided to throw in a motion about a second referendum that was defeated 334 votes to 85 - and the reason for this defeat was because those behind the People's Vote campaign advised their supporters in parliament not to support Umunna's motion because it was an ill thought-out piece of grandstanding - which is hardly the first time Umunna's been guilty of that lately, what with him publicly telling Corbyn to slap the Dire Leader with a No Confidence vote that he said he wouldn't be supporting back in November - because anyone with half a brain would have been able to see that if Labour supported the vote and lost that would have seen a second referendum yanked off the table because that would be seen as "proof" that there aren't enough MPs to support it Of course, the mentalists that make up the FBPE mob these days are currently foaming at the mouth that Corbyn would not support a vote that the People's Vote campaign told MPs not to support, while the Lib Dems are trying to hoodwink the few dozen voters they still have by pretending that the PV didn't tell Labour to abstain by claiming that the Lib Dems and only the Lib Dems support Remain and absolutely positively can't be held responsible for the Tories getting into power in the first place In remarkably similar news, does it surprise anyone that the Benn amendment, which was created to try and get cross-party consensus on any deal, lost by just two votes - votes which just so happened to belong to the usual suspects Kate Hoey, Jon Mann and Graham Stringer?
Machination forward projection : Is it possible for the EU and Thereason May to concoct some internationally enforceable pact whereby A50 can be extended, but the UK has no constituencies that it can contest in the upcoming MEP elections ...
I voted to leave and expected to go back to the same terms and conditions as we had with Europe before we joined in 1975. Perhaps I was naive to expect that. The May deal is not leaving, it is renegotiation of our membership terms and are inferior to what we already have. For that reason I think the only course is to revoke A50, so for me, I hope the EU reject an extension.
Commentators are saying any EU rejection is a heart vs wallet dilemma. Anti-EU hearts means that the likes of Hungary or Italy could do it. However their wallets know that there is an immediate N billion hole in the budget, and they could have to pay more to / receive less from the kitty.
I would prefer to leave, but the PM's deal is not leaving, it is remaining with less of a say. We should have entered the negotiations with our terms and conditions before entering as a basis for agreement. Obviously much has changed since then, police co-operation, sat nav systems etc. so terms could never be exactly the same. Nevertheless, I would rather revoke A50 than accept Mrs May's surrender to the Eurocrats, so yes, I no longer want to leave at this time. In the future perhaps. I would suggest that we remain within the EU and try and change what is so wrong about it, if we fail, then if we have to, make a clean break at a later date. She has gone from 'No deal is better than a bad deal' to 'My clusterf*ck of a deal is better than a no deal'. No it's not, both Remain and Leave with no Deal are both better than the 'Clusterf*ck Deal'. Some things are easy to find solutions for, i.e. Sovereign Courts having seniority over European Courts in their own Realm and Social security payment paid at the lower rate of Adopted Country versus Home Country until the migrant has contributed for 5 years into the Adopted countries economy. We are fortunate that we did not enter the Euro, as it takes away a country's capability of devaluing their currency to avoid a financial crisis, e,g. the Greek situation a couple of years back. Personally, I believe a currency can only work properly with a single Exchequer, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. There will be more bail-outs, like the Greeks. Personally, I think a common currency is a good idea, but it should run alongside each countries own currency in which that countries citizens would be paid. The currencies would would float against the Euro, It would make governments more accountable to their electorate, and allow devaluation. Moving the whole EU set up from Brussels to Strasbourg is an absolute waste of money and should be stopped immediately together with EU rules on expenses. I sold a house in Ashford to an employee of an Irish member of the EU Parliament. I asked her why didn't she buy a house in Brussels? Her reply was 'if I relocate by moving to Brussels, the EU will only pay my rent. If I relocate by buying a house in the UK and commute by Euro Tunnel, they pay my mortgage and train fares. If there is a late sitting of Parliament, I can stay in a Brussels hotel'. Too many are in it for their own gain.
I agree but what do you expect when a remainer is in change of negotiations? She doesn't want it and hasn't from day one.
I think the EU probably fell about laughing when she was elected as PM and had another celebration when she lost her majority at the election. They knew they had her by the balls even though she hasn't got any. They knew it would be more like Dunkirk than D Day. If Bill Cash and Jacob Sleaze-Bag had any balls, which they haven't, and if they had wanted a decent Brexit deal, they should have hijacked the Brexit Negotiations.
From the BBC... Some MPs have suggested looking into whether the backstop could be solved by using Article 62 of the Vienna Convention - which would allow the UK to withdraw from any treaty if there had been "a fundamental change of circumstances... which was not foreseen by the parties". Given that they are looking to use Article 62 as the back door exit, before we've even signed the Treaty...Good luck with claiming something "which was not foreseen by the parties". Plus, we'd be political pariahs. Nobody would ever trust us again...if they still do.
The Irish border issue is a red herring, we already have an agreement not to have a hard border within the Good Friday agreement, nothing to do with the EU, we are not trying to leave the Good Friday agreement. The issue has been manufactured by the DUP because, due to parliamentary numbers, they can. The issues with the May Deal is that we keep paying until we negotiate trade deals etc., which could go on for years or for ever, and in the meantime we have to accept their rules with no Veto, in other words, become a colony of the EU.
I'm only surprised he hasn't yet tweeted some inane comment defending the NZ murderers... It's the hate rhetoric spouted by him and his gang of international co-conspirators that empowers these bastards to commit these atrocities.
Does anyone else think that as the UK plans to honour the GFA, i.e. never have a hard border in Ireland, there is no need for an Irish backstop? Moreover, if this is realised, it might just be the arm bending that is needed to get a Trade Deal over the line.
There is a two lane road running from the north (NI) to the south (RoI) . On that road, the UK has said there be no barriers on the S to N lane, for various reasons. Are the EU going to put barriers on the N to S lane, and if so, what reasons are they going to give for doing so ??
Exactly. In order for us to adhere to the GFA we have to have an open border for ever, therefore we don't need a backstop because it will never be needed. And we dont have to worry about how trade will work, because the EU won't start trade negotiations until Brexit is signed sealed and delivered. The DUP also do not want to be treated differently than the rest of the UK so they need to be part of the subsequent trade deal. The only solution is a free trade deal, it ain't rocket science. Where do they find these clowns who do the negotiations?
