Awol

She’s a serial liar, but more importantly the British state will not erect a hard border, short of Dublin declaring war - an unlikely scenario. Dublin erecting one is electoral death so they won’t do it. There’s a logic to believing the statements that it simply will not be done by anyone, therefore a solution will be agreed.

You can project your own logic onto it or accept what the parties actually in charge have said: No hard border.

@blandy If Ireland was in Schengen then I’d agree. As it’s not I reckon we can negotiate something with Dublin about monitoring movement into the island of Ireland - in both directions. That could involve ID checks at the ferry ports - happens for aircraft already so not unprecedented. The issue is goods more than people & that’s soluble.

If you believe the commitments to no hard border in the event of no-deal are lies, there’s no point talking past each other.

@blandy Pete, your still refusing to engage with the clear statements from Brussels, London & Dublin: under no circumstances will either party allow a hard border, including no-deal. Logic dictates that the parties would therefore negotiate a solution, assuming that such arrangements aren’t already sat on the shelf. The backstop IS a British creation designed to keep us tied to the EU, that’s why May has consistently dodged all specific questions about alternatives. If she engages it unravels.

@blandy The head of HMRC has said categorically no hard border is required under WTO terms. Not asking you to take his word for it, but I will. London, Dublin and Juncker while in Dublin, have all stated no hard border even under a no-deal exit. The head of the WTO has said their rules do not insist on a hard border & it’s down to the relevant authorities to make their own arrangements. Thats not supposition, it’s what the people involved have stated, repeatedly. Why people are continually denying those facts is beyond comprehension.

Reminds me of the X-Men when the machine to turn people into mutants actually makes them a liquid sack. If that process stopped half-way through you’ve got Gove.

Bare bones WTO rules aren’t great, but do provide an operable platform to build on with additional bilateral agreements. If both parties have an economic interest in doing so that can be done quickly - note, I’m not talking about a full FTA. Leaving the EU inevitably means disruption - especially without a transition - because it means a fundamental economic and legal reorientation. The problem is May has tried to have it both ways which is impossible, hence falling on her face.

GFA makes no reference to customs or a hard border, but it does provide for additional protocols to be added to it - indeed additional negotiations were supposed to happen after 1998 to further develop it but Blair didn’t bother. The GFA could therefore provide a platform for an arrangement to be made outwith the EU and this negotiation. All parties could sign up to that as a route to a solution and should want to do so, having agreed to no hard border under any circumstances. The backstop isn’t about the EU being awkward, it was a ‘problem’ made in London as an anchor to keep us within the customs union. It wasn’t even spoken about prior to 2017 because a joint working group between customs authorities in Ireland & the UK were sorting it out. The head of HMRC has given evidence to Parliament that WTO rules don’t require any border infrastructure. The blockage is May, with her out of the way (assuming her deal goes with her) we can reach a deal with the EU, even if that means extending A50 by six months. When this is over, the depth of May’s deception over the last few years is going to be exposed. She makes Machiavelli look like Mr Blobby.

I’m not a huge fan of our EU membership, but Remain is still better than May’s deal. To knowingly enter a legal relationship that gives us no possibility of unilateral exit is insanity, the equivalent of a masochist embracing a genuine sadist & hoping for the best. That said if we got forced into a 2nd referendum and the WTO option was on the ballot I’d take that over Remain or May’s deal. The Treasury modelling is hyper-politicised nonsense IMO. Faced with, for example, the collapse of Airbus, the EU would come around to having a serious negotiation very quickly. The problem we’ve had from the beginning (from a leaver’s perspective) is May’s determination to keep us as closely tied as possible to the geo-legal & geo-economic regimes of the EU. That cuts off the potential benefits of leaving & ultimately facilitates re-entry ASAP. The Tories should have binned her in July when Chequers made the outcome she was aiming for completely clear, but then Tory MPs are Remainers by a clear majority.

She's arrogant, astonishingly deceitful and deeply authoritarian. In terms of ideology it seems to be based solely on people obeying her - like all good wannabe dictators.

What the Bercow....

Yes. My point is that promising to give MP's some notional democratic control over the backstop post-ratification is smoke and mirrors. It will be a matter of international law, so what the HoC has to say after the fact is irrelevant.

The 'empowering the HoC' line is rubbish.The Withdrawal Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, once it's signed there's nothing Parliament can do about it after the fact. She's a very devious piece of work.

Three oral statements later: May with Brexit; Leadsom with Business Statement; Barclay (Brexit Minister) with EU Exit - Article 50.... Big day, if she makes a play to extend A50 then no question about 48 letters going in and a confidence vote.

Could easily imagine enough Brexiteer MPs voting with Labour just to put a stake through the heart of May's deal - and her Premiership. It's beyond farce.

Parliament, and it would take considerable time, requiring A50 to be extended. That only flies in Brussels if Remain is on the ballot.

The judgement earlier today on revoking A50 stated that option falls once a WA is signed. On that basis Remainers would - perversely - be better off voting for no-deal, thus giving themselves until March 29th to try and grab the wheel of government.

By 5pm Brady should have more mail than Santa.

I don't think there's a chance of the vote taking place!

Not that keen on reading the last 300 pages to catch up, so i'll take a wild guess that everyone is still happy with how it's going?

No. The Tories won't touch the Oligarchs holding Putin's cash in London and the opposition leader has demonstrated he's onside regardless. We should seize the assets, accounts and holdings of everyone in London who is associated with Putin and use it it re-establish the disbanded CBRN regiment. That's trolling.

They only stayed in Salisbury for a short time because there was cold slush on the ground. So they went directly back home to Moscow, in March. Troll level: Expert.

Okay. What is your evidence for scenarios 1-3? Any evidence at all that you have gleaned would be cool. I'm assuming you haven't just made them up and there is something to lead you to rank order these scenarios over the painstakingly assembled case put forward by the British authorities?

**** it i'll bite. German Parliamentarians weren't briefed, Merkel and the BND were, and they believed what they heard. Let's flip this. What do you think happened?