Sorry, I need a program, here. Letwin amendment? Amendment F? Bercow insults Greg Hands?
What’s wrong with Greg’s hands?!
Yeah, gotta admit. It’s like they ain’t using real words.
See here. In the UK parliament, the government controls the business of the House of Commons. Letwin’s amendment, which is amendment A, gives the House the ability tomorrow to control the agenda instead so they can hold some votes to try to gauge what sort of Brexit the House might approve of. Amendment F was an amendment to try to force the House to take some concrete steps toward avoiding a no-deal exit. Greg Hands was being pretty insulting about Corbyn, I think, and Bercow commented that Hands was not a very good whip which upset the Tories.
People who actually know this stiff please correct me where I’m wrong.
Almost. Hands was insulting Letwin.
I’m taking great pleasure in learning that Brexiters are in their own civil war about how to respond to all this, with Saint Jacob now declaring he could back the deal as the best possible Brexit or face the whole thing being diluted or called off.
Some Brexiters are coming round to this suggesting they could simply welch on the deal later.
Listen, a whisper from across the seas…it’s from Brussels…
“Get fucked”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
That doesn’t negate my point. If Parliament opted to accept the withdrawal agreement but openly intended to renege on it later as some hard Brexiter are openly proposing, the EU would be justified in pulling the Agreement entirely.
Tusk’s comments are on the observation that there’s a heretofore ignored silent majority for a softer Brexit or even pure Remain that is just beginning to exert itself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You really are desparate for the EU to find some way to throw the UK out of the union, no matter what the damage, aren’t you?
I agree with the sentiment, I think I’ve expressed as much ITT ; but at the same time if their own government is fucking them up the arse, or if they can’t be arsed to make themselves be heard, what can we EU dudes do but watch the shitshow (possibly with some popcorn and/or lube) ? How do we represent them ? And should we continue “representing” or “not betraying” them **after **the UK does its “no fuck YOU, Dad !” thing ? How ? Why ?
6 million signatures + one million marchers. How much more arsed could they be, given they’re not getting a direct vote on things? Should they set fire to parts of the capital every weekend, like certain neighbours? Is that what it takes to show they are, in fact, quite arsed.
Really not, but I don’t see the EU compromising on the Four Freedoms to accommodate a petulant child.
Please, Steophan, if ERGers agreed to the Malthouse Compromise, why should the EU accept it? It’s completely unfair to the EU, and to Ireland especially.
Nobody’s throwing the UK out - the UK itself wants to leave. The idea that it could extract a special, unequal arrangement with the EU is utter fantasy.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It’s not that they couldn’t be bothered, but that Remainers and Brexit moderates were drowned it by the national conversation after the referendum. The vote polarised the country, the extremists got the airtime on the Brexit side after the vote, and Remainers were divided and cowed.
It’s only now they’ve started getting noticed again as the media start realising the prospect of remaining or a soft Brexit isn’t as outrageously unlikely as it once appeared.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is there anyone alive who can’t see the ERG’s game plan now?
They’ll back May’s deal to get Brexit over the line. Once revocation becomes impossible, they will then tear up the deal.
If May’s deal passes, No-Deal will be the inevitable outcome.
Inevitable.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well it works for us. For variable amounts of “work”.
Because, as I have to keep saying, for the EU not to do so would be worse for everyone.
You are exactly the same as those who voted for Brexit, or those who voted for Trump, in that either through ignorance or malice you are quite happy to cause significant and lasting harm to you and yours as long as “the other” suffers more.
Both the UK and the EU need to do whatever is necessary to ensure that a no-deal Brexit does not happen. There is not compromise, no sacrifice, no “bad deal” that is worse than that, for either side.
The thing is, though, at the moment the EU doesn’t need to do anything except extend Article 50 as requested, and shut up about electing MEPs. That can be dealt with when a final agreement is reached.
Yeah, I know…
But FWIW, I don’t see the value of a “soft Brexit” at all. It’s a shit compromise that would accomplish shit results for shit reasons. It’s mitigation of retardation, nothing better. I wish someone would tell the extremists to fuck right off, honestly. Preferably the Queen, because I have a dream where she sets her corgis on Farage, and it’s beautiful.
Sets a right proper precedent, too.
Revocation only becomes impossible if the EU decides it is so. They could, if they chose, allow it to be revoked at any point in the future, and revert everything to how it was before the referendum was even held.
But yes, if the EU insist on enforcing an unacceptable deal (which the current one clearly is), it’s extremely likely a future Parliament will tear it up. Because our Parliament is just as stubborn and willing to harm the country as the EU is to harm the Union.
You explain the value in your own post, to mitigate the harm done by the intransigence on every side. And a shit compromise is better than no compromise at all, for both sides, given that the EU has made it effectively impossible for the UK to revoke Article 50.
I would love to tell the extremists who want the EU to harm both itself and the UK to fuck right off, but I think that would be against the rules of this forum.
The value of a soft Brexit for the UK is that it keeps as many of the economic benefits of the EU as possible, while getting rid of as many political obligations as possible. Is a plan that does so perfectly a “unicorn”? Pretty much. Is there a possible plan that will mostly meet that objective? I think so. It actually seems at this point that Parliament is trying to settle on which soft Brexit it prefers.
No, Steophan.
The problem is this.
The likes of the ERG are never satisfied. Never ever.
Let’s say the EU does what you say, and caves, and gives the UK a right to unilaterally revoke the customs union backstop. Completely free, with no tradeoff by the UK.
I tell you what will happen next: the ERG will take this, smile, turn to their supporters, say ‘the EU has blinked!’ And they’ll turn back to the EU and DEMAND MORE CONCESSIONS.
How much should the EU concede just so it can keep fluffing the delusional Brexiters to save the Uk from itself? Until the UK has completely free access to the Single Market, without tariffs, plus representation on the EU’s institutions, without any obligation to pay or obey anything it doesn’t want to?
By putting its foot down, the EU has helped to save the UK from these freaks. Already we’re seeing Parliament take control and softer versions of Brexit, more reasonable and less damaging, become more tenable politically.
Thank you, EU, for doing what you did. You’ve made it easier for the UK and the EU to form a beneficial, stable partnership for the future.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk