So this Brexit thing

SID

That's not the question I asked though. I think what you are saying is that there (as far as you are concerned) no mitigating circumstances which could ever render a decision injudicious.

Brexit for example was sold on the promise of taking back control of our laws, borders, and money. And an end to FoM (labour).

As the binding WA sets out, not a single one of those objectives will materialise, despite the fanfares from the PM.

So subvert democracy then.

It’s either enact the result or don’t.

And yes the WA is ridiculous.

comment by Sid (U1868)
posted 2 minutes ago
And yes the WA is ridiculous.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But so blindingly obvious given the commitments already made to the GFA in phase one last December:

"The two Parties have carried out a mapping exercise, which shows that North-South cooperation relies to a significant extent on a common European Union legal and policy framework."

"The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

MPs are now voting on Conservative MP Dominic Grieve's amendment to the timetabling motion for the Brexit deal debate.

The amendment would allow any further motions voted on in the Commons under the EU Withdrawal Act to be amended.

For example, if the government has to table a new motion after losing the vote on the government's negotiated deal, MPs would be able to amend it....


Ayes have it...


Given the EU will not renegotiate current agreement, it's a bit moot is it not?

So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.

You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.

Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.

As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).

You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.

As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.

The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.

comment by Metro.⚽️ (U6770)
posted 2 hours, 24 minutes ago
So 90 minutes later I return to the same mistakes being made.

You’re conflating the act of leaving of the EU to the future arrangements.

Leaving the EU is a black and white decision. How it’s achieved is something we put in the faith of the government.

As for WWSPD response. You strike me as having never encountered the seemingly obvious flaws in your comments. Take your EFTA example whereby you assume the possibility that people voting to leave the EU somehow also wanted to remain tied to the rulings of the ECJ (see EFTA court).

You want to convince leave voters that even though they argued for more sovereignty, they’d be prepared to sacrifice it for an EFTA agreement. I’m not buying that.

As for the Galileo project, I personally don’t think it applies to this debate. The EU is happy to be partners in some areas and not in others. I think it’s a disgrace on their part to state we can have no involvement in a project of which we were one of the primary funders.

The idea that because something is difficult that you simply accept the status quo is not something I stand for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest you read the withdrawal agreement. It's hard going and a lot of it is legalese but it affirms the ECJ will provide comprehensive oversight over our judiciary.

Except we'll no longer have ECJ (UK judges) representation.

Whilst you may have interpreted a binary choice (leave/remain) as black and white the rest of the country has not. Hence why the UKG and parliament still can't reach a settled position.

You also misunderstand "sovereignty." In that no country that wishes to be "a global leader in free trade" can be completely sovereign. Trade liberalisation, mutual equivalence etc (regulatory allignment) are the building blocks of free trade. Any country (including the other two regulatory superpowers; China and the US) that wishes to export into the SM has to adhere to EU regulations. The UK included.

In regard to Galelio, due to funding problems China, Israel, Morocco, Norway have all been involved in it's development since 2003 but a motion by the UKrep that it should only be directly accessible to member states passed in 2009. This was to protect the likes of Airbus from being outbid by international companies.

Somewhat ironic that as a third country the UK will not be able to benefit from Galelio due to a motion we raised ourselves...

Brexit has certainly been (and will continue to be) difficult. But given the UK government's commitment to the GFA it now looks impossible.

In that if you honestly believe there will soon be technological, administrative and/or legal solutions to keep the Irish border open (to mitigate the backstop) without tying the UK and/or NI into a CU/SM you are kiding yourself. Or a member of the ERG.

So it transpires that this Irish backstop thingy is a real sticking point and would tie the whole of the UK to the single customs territory indefinitely as neither side can withdraw from it without explicit consent from the other side.

As such the EU would have us over a barrel and could extend negotiations indefinitely. There would be nothing we could do about it except to cede to their demands.

With this in mind, the withdrawal agreement as it stands is totally unworkable and as such the only other options are a No-Dea- Brexit which is incompatible with the Good Friday agreement as it would require a hard border between Eire & NI. This hard border will break the Good Friday agreement which in turn will see the return of the 70s, 80s & 90s 'troubles' (terrorism to use the correct terminology). That is not a route we want to go down again but is a possibility.

The only other option is No-Brexit which goes against the will of the leave voters so I say, let the same leave voters have the final say on which of those 3 scenarios is more acceptable to them.

Brexit means what exactly?

*** No-Deal-Brexit ***

I caught a bit of the HoCs debates last night and Owen Paterson (ERG) is *still* spouting the falsehood that two separate customs entities can protect their external walls/borders (mitigating the need for checks) with “technology.”

Despite this technology not being utilised anywhere else in the world. He used to be NI secretary ffs so should at least have a basic understanding of the province.