Awol

Agreed. More likely it’ll be the positive or negative development of the EU in our absence that influences the balance of opinion in UK over coming years. Listening to PMQs now & May’s plan seems to be tweaking her deal and going again. Quite remarkable levels of delusion.

Fair enough, we should swop twitter’s.

Twitter says WTF?

Seen. That’s why I think people pinning all hope on a 2nd referendum aren’t being totally realistic. Of course Remain could win, but that’s far from being a shoe-in and the campaign would raise the level of public rancour even further.

Saw the constitutional wallah Vernon Bogdanor in TV & he broke it down very well. Only statute can overturn statute, so if the HoC passed a motion calling for a 2nd referendum that would have to be translated into a bill, go through committee and then be voted on in the HoC to become law, an Act of Parliament. That’s 6-8 months minimum but probably longer if Leavers oppose it in committee to delay process, deciding the question alone would be debated for months. To enable that, Art.50 would need extending, but can only go until July maximum when the new E.U. Parliamentary elections take place. They don’t want the UK hanging around and mucking that up even more than the tsunami of continental populist MEPs heading there shortly. So the timing is a real problem for those chasing a 2nd ref’. Far as I can see that leaves only two deliverable options: leave on the 29th as currently established in law, or, permanently revoke Art.50 & repeal EU withdrawal Act, pretend the referendum never happened, & hope the public shrugs it off... lol.

Adam Boulton has pretty much canonised her... Both the Beeb & Sky (to an amazing degree) are hardcore Remain, editorially. If May fell there’s a real ‘risk’ of someone who actually believes in Brexit taking over in No.10. I reckon that prospect terrifies them.

I understand that mate, but she’s as likely to resign as Idi Amin, and about as user friendly. I don’t buy the ‘dutiful woman’ line, she’s a Machiavellian maniac. The fact she ran a shadow Brexit unit in the Cabinet Office, developed an agreement in secret and totally undermined the rest of her government (including the Brexit Department!) was a deceit without precedent, equivalent to planning D-Day while excluding the MoD. She a nutter, a power mad, full-bore psychopath & Tory MPs will live to regret not potting her last night. (IMO, obvs.)

If you can take care of that, it’s yours.

There’s a logic to it. She’s a Remainer & post the referendum the Remainery politicos decided to ignore the polling showing that sovereignty (let’s not have that argument again Pete!) was the largest factor for leave voters, with immigration some way behind in 2nd. They didn’t believe in Brexit as a project but were in charge, so aimed to keep as close to the EU economic & legal order as possible, while clinging totemically to immigration as the thing to deliver that would satisfy the racist, foreigner hating leavers. Her entire policy has been based on a totally flawed analysis of the result, hence 2.5 years trying to negotiate a settlement that missed the entire point and now consequently can’t carry the leavers in Parliament and the country.

If there was an alternative that a majority of the public felt was electable the Tories would be sunk. Saw a poll in last few days that had May on 42% and Corbyn on 22% as best leader to complete Brexit, yet by common consent she’s a terrible leader - possibly without parallel. The cupboard of senior Parliamentary talent is looking pretty bare, & now the Tories have just locked May into place for another 12 months. It’s an absolute shitshow.

Funny thing is it doesn’t even sound like a partisan point. Water is wet, the Conservatives are a joke, etc.

That’s fair enough, but the precedent for doing so is decades old, it’s not a new thing. Dont look now but I think we’re going to have another one!

I don’t think that’s right. Devolution was a series of massive constitutional issues settled by direct democracy, as was the 1975 Common Market vote. The 2016 vote was following the established precedent of putting major constitutional decisions directly to the people. The difference this time was the result going against the preference of a majority of MPs, who are now trying to reassert the supremacy of the representative model over a decision they kicked up to be taken by direct democracy. Thats why it’s such as mess, Parliament was happy for the people to decide, as long as they gave the ‘correct’ answer.

MPs don’t need to vote for no deal, it’s already on the statute book. The government needs to pass legislation to bring about a different solution. That’s how it works.

An agreement does need to be reached, of course. The point is if UK said tomorrow it was leaving on WTO terms then London & Dublin/Brussels negotiate based on their existing position. Even then there is no automaticity to a hard border, neighbouring states decide the nature of the borders between them. Their is no higher authority in the realm of international relations that can compel states to act a certain way, it’s the nature of the anarchic international system.

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.