Many papers adopt a scornful tone when reporting events in Parliament, where a special weekend sitting resulted in Boris Johnson's Brexit plan being frustrated by MPs. "Super Saturday? Make that Superfluous Saturday," says Sunday Telegraph sketchwriter Michael Deacon. He argues the outcome represented "the entire Brexit process in microcosm". "Hysterical build-up. Media frenzy. Promises to the public that this was the moment of truth. And then, at the last minute, MPs once again agree to put off the big decision for another day," he writes. "The House of Fools", reads the Mail on Sunday's front-page headline, above photographs of four of the "posturing MPs" who it says "subjected us to yet more agonising delay". They are Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Oliver Letwin who tabled the amendment to "withhold approval" for the prime minister's Brexit deal, Commons Speaker John Bercow and former Chancellor Philip Hammond. "Why won't they let us leave?" asks the front page of the Sunday Express, which voices its "outrage" that Parliament voted "to obstruct Boris's breakthrough Brexit deal". Its editorial claims "we're in a new period of chaos", after the "House of Cowards" again showed it "prefers irresponsible procrastination to decisive action". 'Oliver Twits'
Sir Oliver comes in for some of the most virulent criticism. The Mail quotes a senior Tory labelling Sir Oliver a "useful idiot" for the "organ grinder", Lord Pannick QC. It claims the lawyer - who also "masterminded" Boris Johnson's "Supreme Court humiliation" - helped draft Sir Oliver's "wrecking amendment". "Oliver Twits," reads the Sun on Sunday's headline. The paper calls Mr Letwin A "buffoon" who came up with the poll tax, and has now "persuaded zombie MPs to block Brexit". The Sun also attacks the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, which backed the Letwin amendment, saying their "stubborn refusal to compromise is beyond all reason". "We had the deal nailed down, and we blew it," laments Caroline Flint, one of the six Labour MPs who voted with the government. She writes in the Sunday Times how she'd "worked in good faith" to improve Mr Johnson's deal, with guarantees on workers' rights, environmental standards and animal welfare all secured and ready to be embodied into legislation. The Independent website, on the other hand, pictures the scene outside The Commons, where campaigners for another referendum amassed in Parliament Square. It claims a million people joined the march for a "Final Say on Brexit", on what is says was "the day you made Johnson listen". Likewise, the Observer pictures the massed demonstrators, next to a headline reading: "A million take to the streets for public vote. In a comment piece, Will Hutton writes: "We marched with hope but few expectations. Yet history will side with us." The Sunday Times dismisses them as "A vast throng, too posh to putsh."
Sketch: Brexit is in the hands of the idiots, and they've dropped it The country can only move forward with the express permission of Mark Francois. How did it ever come to this?
The country’s economic future, waiting around for sign-off by Mark Francois. He bobbed and weaved his way up to the No 10 door in the mid afternoon as if 10 minutes late for Pie and Pint night in Wickford Wetherspoon* (*there is no Wickford Wetherspoon currently, but Francois is personally lobbying for one).
What was said behind that door we cannot know. We can only know that the country cannot move forward without Mark Francois’s say-so. A man whom three years ago his own next door neighbour might not have ever heard of, now rendered a household name by Brexit, or to give it its working subtitle: The Insatiable Rise of The Idiot.
So yes, psychopaths and idiots. And on that subject, next in and out were the ladies and gentlemen of the Democratic Unionist Party. Their Brexit spokesperson, Sammy Wilson, didn’t think the deal on offer was good enough for the unionists of Northern Ireland.
“The UK and the EU are about to find out what the Good Friday Agreement means,” he said. At what point Mr Wilson himself found out what the Good Friday Agreement means is not immediately clear, as by the time of that historic day in 1998, the DUP had already walked out, having refused to sign up to it.
Northern Irish politics is extravagantly complex, but what is a simple fact is that the DUP want a hard Brexit but no hard border.
It is an unsolvable problem for somebody else to solve, their role being to sweep in periodically and say “no” to the latest extravagantly complex attempt to meet their impossible demands. The stages of evolution to find their unicorn first involved Theresa May placing a traffic cone on a donkey. Now it’s been painted white, sprayed in glitter and Iain Duncan Smith is said to be exploring “technological solutions” on how to bestow it with the gift of flight but it still won’t do.
It’s none of these things, really. It’s the sheer ingenuity of likening Brexit to an ascent of Mount Everest. On the unlikely chance we do indeed make it to the top, Cummings, Gove Johnson and co will pause and breathe in the wonder of their stunning achievement. And then it will be a matter of seconds before it is stunningly obvious that it’s absolutely terrifying up here and if we don’t get down right away we’re all going to die.
At time of writing, customs is the sticking point. How do you keep the Irish border completely open, and still somehow prevent people who want to dodge paying VAT (ie the entire population) from driving goods across it? The short answer remains the same as the long one. It can’t be done. If it could be done, Norway and Sweden would have done it years ago. It can’t be done.
Oh well. Who even cares anymore? It’s all auto-ironic now. All the rest of us can do is hang about, watching the doors shut, listening to the walls bang, waiting for the idiots finally to give their stamp of idiotic approval to the single stupidest thing any once sensible country has ever done.
Boris has made Northern Irish "consent" into a big thing. Yet this seems to show that if one side were in the minority then there would be little they could do about it. So lets say the Unionists were unhappy with the new arrangements, they could vote to discontinue them. This may be because the new arrangements were badly affecting their businesses, for example. The new arrangements will continue, unless a majority vote against. So if the Unionists were in the minority, they would be stuck. Also, terminating the new arrangements seem only to lead to a land border, in breach of The Good Friday Agreement. "Consent" would not seem to be a valid description.
Of course the leave voters understood all this at the time of the referendum?
Legal experts know that Boris Johnson's EU deal still doesn't cut it – here's why I would remind MPs to look behind the shiny bright façade of the deal and examine its contents. Yes, it is a deal but what will it really mean?
the EU is not happy with the terms of the future trade relationship, then the UK still risks leaving without a deal in 2020.
Below is a quick summary of the effects of the Johnson deal:
Goods In terms of goods, old paragraph 23 from May’s deal – “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas” – has been deleted. That is a crucial difference. Rather than having (as per May’s deal) a close “economic partnership” and a trading relationship that is “as close as possible” with the EU, the UK will now be a distinct market, setting its own rules and trading on a hands-off Canada-style basis. There will be no single market or customs area, market access will be much more restricted and trade will not be frictionless. Contrary to previous Tory desires to reduce regulatory burdens, there will be more customs checks and red tape when it comes to UK exports to the EU. UK standards will most likely be lower than the EU so some goods may not be able to be marketed and sold in 31 states if they do not meet EU standards. Companies will have to comply with multiple rules and redesign their products for different markets. Or they will decide to comply with EU standards anyway. Products may become more expensive (due to lower economies of scale) or face delays.
In terms of EU imports to the UK, they are most likely to be of a superior standard so will meet the UK minimum requirements. They’re likely to be cheaper (larger scale and one-stop production for both markets) and transit faster. This may put UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage. You also have to analyse this scenario in a wider WTO context – we still don’t know whether the UK will apply zero tariffs for imports from the rest of the world or insist on product standards. UK agriculture and manufacturing could face a double whammy if sales are undercut by cheaper EU and foreign imports.
Maintaining standards There is a new section XIV – Clause 77 – that requires the UK to uphold the common high standards applicable in the EU and UK in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change and relevant tax matters. The UK cannot undermine the EU level playing field by allowing circumvention of EU rules. This sounds positive, but this is a non-binding commitment, not enforceable until written into an FTA. The UK will no longer be committing to the EU rule book but just a loose commitment to observe high standards – whether from the EU or the rest of the world. In many areas, the EU standards are replicated elsewhere, for example, the EU competition rules are being copied in Hong Kong, China and Africa, so the idea that the UK will be able to move away from them when dealing with other countries is wholly misleading
Agencies EU rules for regulated industries are often made through regulatory networks and agencies where the UK currently enjoys full participation in rule-making. Now, the UK has downgraded its involvement to exploring “the possibility of cooperation” within the EMA (European Medicines Agency), EBA (European Banking Authority) and EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency). The wording is weak and offers no guarantees. For other networks, like telecoms, energy, transport and chemicals, the wording is feebler, with access dependent on its extent of alignment and cooperation. It is clear that the UK will only have observer status – meaning that we will be rule-takers without any say in the formulation of policy or actual decision-making regarding authorisations or sanctions. Services As over 80 per cent of the UK economy is driven by services, which has been a huge success story for UK business in the EU, there is the risk of severe dereliction of duty if MPs do not focus on the service industry. This is not just financial services but digital broadcasting, insurance, legal and accounting advice, consultancy, e-commerce, data and transportation services, which to date are provided on a pan-European basis across all 31 EU/EEA states. Here, the Johnson and May deals are identical. Services will no longer benefit from full passporting in all 31 EU/EEA states. Instead, they will be relegated to the WTO framework with possible add-ons from a Canada-style free trade agreement, which are vastly inferior to the Lisbon Treaty. So, what does this mean?
85 per cent of our economy (services) will effectively be in the same position as a no-deal scenario. WTO terms for services are rudimentary compared with the EU rules – they allow minimum access to markets and prohibition on direct discrimination. Host states still retain discretionary power to impose regulatory barriers and standards. There is a limited equivalence regime for financial services. When it comes to digital services, there is no guarantee of rule of origin so broadcasters and programmers (Sky, Netflix) will need to move registration and staff to other member states. In e-commerce, there is limited cooperation on rules but no guarantees. Courier services are not covered, so one impact may be that Amazon cannot provide next day deliveries from any order fulfilled from an EU member state.
Many sectors are dependent upon the EU’s state of the art passporting regimes – eg life insurance, travel insurance, health insurance, car insurance, financial services, architects, doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers. They are all governed by their home state rules and do not have to comply with 31 different sets of requirements. What this will mean in practice? As an example, a UK law firm will no longer be able to provide advice and legal representation across multiple states. Instead, their lawyer will have to requalify, establish and comply with Belgian rules and pay registration and insurance fees in both countries. That will not give the right to practise from Belgium across other EU countries. According to the Law Society, the UK legal sector is the largest in the EU and contributed more than £26bn to the economy in 2017. EU law firms are keen to replace the UK’s success. The APPG on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended that this “devastating” impact should be “avoided at all costs”. That story is replicated across multiple different business sectors.
Governance and diplomacy
The ruling from the CJEU will be binding on the UK and there will be sanctions in terms of suspended access to markets and financial compensation if it does not adhere to the ruling.
All in all, when Johnson did his victory lap in the European parliament yesterday, I rather think his fellow leaders were celebrating their upper hand in the negotiations and the concessions accepted by the UK in the last desperate hours. Johnson set out to procure a Rolls Royce but came back with a second-hand Reliant Robin.
Labour to back bid for second Brexit referendum this week Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer says party will whip MPs to support backbench move to secure Final Say vote
If it came to sizes of demonstrations, the biggest would be the anti democratic demonstration if we don’t leave.They don’t need to march,as things are slowly moving forward( loose term)😁 Remainers are being whipped up, but come the day anti democracy supporters and remainers both march, things will turn really ugly.
That old excuse about being misled by Brexit supporters at the time of the referendum, is absolutely no different to all the things promised in manifestos that are never kept. It’s by no coincidence that suddenly parties come up with what are supposedly good ideas when an election is forthcoming. They take UK citizens as gullible mugs.
If it came to sizes of demonstrations, the biggest would be the anti democratic demonstration if we don’t leave.They don’t need to march,as things are slowly moving forward( loose term)😁 Remainers are being whipped up, but come the day anti democracy supporters and remainers both march, things will turn really ugly.
That old excuse about being misled by Brexit supporters at the time of the referendum, is absolutely no different to all the things promised in manifestos that are never kept. It’s by no coincidence that suddenly parties come up with what are supposedly good ideas when an election is forthcoming. They take UK citizens as gullible mugs.
If it came to sizes of demonstrations, the biggest would be the anti democratic demonstration if we don’t leave.They don’t need to march,as things are slowly moving forward( loose term)😁 Remainers are being whipped up, but come the day anti democracy supporters and remainers both march, things will turn really ugly.
That old excuse about being misled by Brexit supporters at the time of the referendum, is absolutely no different to all the things promised in manifestos that are never kept. It’s by no coincidence that suddenly parties come up with what are supposedly good ideas when an election is forthcoming. They take UK citizens as gullible mugs.
How the heck can a member of Parliament that’s standing down shortly, that has a poor track record,only got a gong because he’s in the “circle”, put a spanner in the workings?
I need this Chilly Billy past in the Commons.
Once a member of Parliament decides he or she, or even LGBT, no longer wish to serve for the party that they were elected for, they are out the door,bog off! Then an instant by-election in their constituency.
There’s a dozen or more besides Letwin that that applies to. Scandalous behavior!
There's much speculation about whether Boris Johnson has missed his best chance to get his Brexit deal passed without radical changes, after Saturday's setback in the Commons. Analysis by the Financial Times suggests the prime minister may have a majority of five for the agreement in its current form - if Commons Speaker John Bercow allows MPs a straightforward vote on it. The Daily Telegraph says it's "still anyone's guess" whether Mr Johnson has the numbers to get an agreement through. It believes the prime minister is braced for another week of "parliamentary chicanery", and could try once again to force a snap general election if he fails to stop the legislation accompanying the deal being amended. A senior source in the DUP tells the paper it will be "guerrilla warfare", amid suggestions the Northern Irish party which has propped up the minority Conservative government could support a Labour amendment to keep the UK in a customs union with the EU. "Ditched!" is the caption accompanying the Guardian's cartoon, which shows DUP leader Arlene Foster and ex-Conservative MP Sir Oliver Letwin digging a large hole for Boris Johnson and his advisor, Dominic Cummings, as they hold aloft the three letters the prime minister sent to Brussels at the weekend. Mr Johnson had forwarded an unsigned photocopy of a request for a delay to Brexit that he had been compelled to send by Parliament, along with a signed personal note saying he did not want a postponement, and a cover note.
In its editorial, the Guardian says MPs "rightly put the brakes on" the government's Brexit deal on Saturday - and must now "hold their nerve to subject it to forensic scrutiny" in the coming days. The Financial Times agrees, arguing that if Mr Johnson is so confident his deal is a "great" one, he should set out a clear, detailed vision for it. The New Statesman website thinks Mr Johnson faces an uphill struggle to pass an unchanged agreement, regardless of what the opposition do. "The government's coalition for a deal is already unstable," writes Patrick Maguire, who adds it was "always going to be difficult" to keep Tory hardliners like Bill Cash and moderate Labour MPs in Leave-voting constituencies united. The Sun anticipates a "fierce week of parliamentary warfare" as Labour tries to bolt another referendum onto the deal. However, HuffPost UK thinks a different amendment - to keep the UK in a customs union with the EU - has more chance of success, as the numbers for a new public vote "still do not seem to be there". Other publications condemn the prime minister's opponents. The Daily Express accuses Labour of trying to "torpedo" the deal. "How dare they!" is its front page headline. And the Daily Mail describes the customs union amendment as a "plot to wreck Brexit". Some are simply exasperated by events over the last 48 hours. "Dear God, please make it stop," begs Judith Woods in a column on the Daily Telegraph's front page. Borrowing a phrase from the prime minister, she adds: "We will all be dead in a ditch if this purgatorial anguish goes on much longer.
If it came to sizes of demonstrations, the biggest would be the anti democratic demonstration if we don’t leave.They don’t need to march,as things are slowly moving forward( loose term)😁
I dont think so, there was a much smaller protest, when we didnt leave in March.
The vote looks very close.
Remainers are being whipped up, but come the day anti democracy supporters and remainers both march, things will turn really ugly.
I cant see any reason why they would both march on the same day, and the police would probably avoid it at all costs.
That old excuse about being misled by Brexit supporters at the time of the referendum, is absolutely no different to all the things promised in manifestos that are never kept.
Most people still don't have a clue what Brexit really means,
You have the opportunity to elect another party. Once this is done, it is done.
It’s by no coincidence that suddenly parties come up with what are supposedly good ideas when an election is forthcoming. They take UK citizens as gullible mugs.
I've now given up on believing that anything will ever get decided and now just follow it all for the entertainment value,which it doesn't fail to deliver on that point.
How the heck can a member of Parliament that’s standing down shortly, that has a poor track record,only got a gong because he’s in the “circle”, put a spanner in the workings?
I need this Chilly Billy past in the Commons.
Once a member of Parliament decides he or she, or even LGBT, no longer wish to serve for the party that they were elected for, they are out the door,bog off! Then an instant by-election in their constituency.
There’s a dozen or more besides Letwin that that applies to. Scandalous behavior!
Lots of fingers have been pointed at Oliver Letwin, and much nonsense has been talked about him, with little understanding being shown.
My view is that this criticism is idiotic.
Boris was expecting a Parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on Saturday.
His motives for this were two fold.
Firstly, if it got through, he could have avoided sending the extension letter to the EU, and saving himself from the embarrassment this has caused, purely because of his claims that he would never send this letter.
Secondly, he was trying to get the deal passed without giving MPs the opportunity to scrutinise it.
Brexit is probably the most important decision for our country in a generation. Yet Boris wanted to get it passed after little discussion, and no scrutiny.
I listened to an MP yesterday that pointed out that a Finance Bill, will usually be debated for 20 days, and that an important EU Treaty has been known to be debated for double that time.
Boris brought the deal back on Friday, and wanted it passed on Saturday.
All Mr Letwin did was produce an amendment that stopped this happening until the Brexit Legislation is passed allowing for some reasonable discussion, and scrutiny.
He intends to vote for the deal, and voted for Theresa Mays deal 3 times, something that the PM, and the likes of Rees-Mogg, didn't do.
So Mr Letwin has voted in favour of leaving at every possible opportunity.
He doesn't trust the PM which is completely justifiable.
He said at the DUP conference he would never consider a border in the Irish Sea, which he now has implemented.
He also assured a Brexit fanatic, that leaving with no deal would still be possible at the end of next year.
I've now given up on believing that anything will ever get decided and now just follow it all for the entertainment value,which it doesn't fail to deliver on that point.
It think that it has clearly shown that nobody realised that Brexit would be a series of difficult if not impossible choices.
Does it strike you as idiotic, that we still don't know where we will end up, three and a half years later?
How could the leave side know what they were voting for, when we still don't know what we will get?
Take the backstop. This was Theresa Mays choice of how to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
Boris has chosen something else, which is less popular with the people of NI, and the DUP.
Many will not support either solution.
There are moves to add a customs union to the deal.
This may provide a better long term solution to the Irish border, but will not be entertained by those wishing to pursue an independent trade policy.
So I think it fair to say that Brexit is a series of choices. The problem is that many people that are faced with a choice of two options, are not in favour of either. They want the benefits of both options, but without any obligations.
I've now given up on believing that anything will ever get decided and now just follow it all for the entertainment value,which it doesn't fail to deliver on that point.
It think that it has clearly shown that nobody realised that Brexit would be a series of difficult if not impossible choices.
Does it strike you as idiotic, that we still don't know where we will end up, three and a half years later?
How could the leave side know what they were voting for, when we still don't know what we will get?
Take the backstop. This was Theresa Mays choice of how to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
Boris has chosen something else, which is less popular with the people of NI, and the DUP.
Many will not support either solution.
There are moves to add a customs union to the deal.
This may provide a better long term solution to the Irish border, but will not be entertained by those wishing to pursue an independent trade policy.
So I think it fair to say that Brexit is a series of choices. The problem is that many people that are faced with a choice of two options, are not in favour of either. They want the benefits of both options, but without any obligations.
If you were caught speeding the police used to offer a fixed penalty, or you could go to court.
I don't know if this is the same these days because I haven't been caught for ages.
If you chose the fixed penalty you got your £80 fine, which you had to pay pretty much immediately. and your points, end of.
If you chose to go to court, it would usually result in a much bigger fine, court costs, and solicitors fees if you used one.
When it comes to Brexit, everyone seems to be saying that they only want an £80 fine, aren't prepared to pay it immediately, don't really want to go to court, pay any costs, and have a solicitor provided free of charge.
Not many people seem to be able to get their heads around, the fact that in many cases it is strictly one thing or another.
That just proves Boris is a liar and a hypocrite like most of the other members. It was obvious that concessions had to be made to have any chance of leaving with a deal. Is there anybody in the U.K. that doesn’t know there will be a downside to leaving the EU? How long that will last is anybody’s guess. Any type of deal will affect certain people’s jobs and wealth. I’d expect people to fight their corner, obviously, but upholding democracy is far more important. It seems that everyone has their own agenda, including newspapers, of which I haven’t purchased for 25years. Remember Murdock sidling up to Blair because he was after control of Sky ? So his papers had a relentless onslaught of the Tories. Then , as he doesn’t get a result from Blair, he switches his onslaught in his papers towards Labour. I think it’s best to think and draw your on conclusions, than to take in any media hype and sensationalism. And I still think those members that have left the parties with which they were elected to represent, shouldn’t be allowed in the chamber. They were elected to represent a party and not themselves.
Comments
Many papers adopt a scornful tone when reporting events in Parliament, where a special weekend sitting resulted in Boris Johnson's Brexit plan being frustrated by MPs.
"Super Saturday? Make that Superfluous Saturday," says Sunday Telegraph sketchwriter Michael Deacon. He argues the outcome represented "the entire Brexit process in microcosm".
"Hysterical build-up. Media frenzy. Promises to the public that this was the moment of truth. And then, at the last minute, MPs once again agree to put off the big decision for another day," he writes.
"The House of Fools", reads the Mail on Sunday's front-page headline, above photographs of four of the "posturing MPs" who it says "subjected us to yet more agonising delay". They are Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Oliver Letwin who tabled the amendment to "withhold approval" for the prime minister's Brexit deal, Commons Speaker John Bercow and former Chancellor Philip Hammond.
"Why won't they let us leave?" asks the front page of the Sunday Express, which voices its "outrage" that Parliament voted "to obstruct Boris's breakthrough Brexit deal". Its editorial claims "we're in a new period of chaos", after the "House of Cowards" again showed it "prefers irresponsible procrastination to decisive action".
'Oliver Twits'
Sir Oliver comes in for some of the most virulent criticism. The Mail quotes a senior Tory labelling Sir Oliver a "useful idiot" for the "organ grinder", Lord Pannick QC. It claims the lawyer - who also "masterminded" Boris Johnson's "Supreme Court humiliation" - helped draft Sir Oliver's "wrecking amendment".
"Oliver Twits," reads the Sun on Sunday's headline. The paper calls Mr Letwin A "buffoon" who came up with the poll tax, and has now "persuaded zombie MPs to block Brexit". The Sun also attacks the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, which backed the Letwin amendment, saying their "stubborn refusal to compromise is beyond all reason".
"We had the deal nailed down, and we blew it," laments Caroline Flint, one of the six Labour MPs who voted with the government. She writes in the Sunday Times how she'd "worked in good faith" to improve Mr Johnson's deal, with guarantees on workers' rights, environmental standards and animal welfare all secured and ready to be embodied into legislation.
The Independent website, on the other hand, pictures the scene outside The Commons, where campaigners for another referendum amassed in Parliament Square. It claims a million people joined the march for a "Final Say on Brexit", on what is says was "the day you made Johnson listen".
Likewise, the Observer pictures the massed demonstrators, next to a headline reading: "A million take to the streets for public vote. In a comment piece, Will Hutton writes: "We marched with hope but few expectations. Yet history will side with us."
The Sunday Times dismisses them as "A vast throng, too posh to putsh."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-50113100
The country can only move forward with the express permission of Mark Francois. How did it ever come to this?
The country’s economic future, waiting around for sign-off by Mark Francois. He bobbed and weaved his way up to the No 10 door in the mid afternoon as if 10 minutes late for Pie and Pint night in Wickford Wetherspoon* (*there is no Wickford Wetherspoon currently, but Francois is personally lobbying for one).
What was said behind that door we cannot know. We can only know that the country cannot move forward without Mark Francois’s say-so. A man whom three years ago his own next door neighbour might not have ever heard of, now rendered a household name by Brexit, or to give it its working subtitle: The Insatiable Rise of The Idiot.
So yes, psychopaths and idiots. And on that subject, next in and out were the ladies and gentlemen of the Democratic Unionist Party.
Their Brexit spokesperson, Sammy Wilson, didn’t think the deal on offer was good enough for the unionists of Northern Ireland.
“The UK and the EU are about to find out what the Good Friday Agreement means,” he said.
At what point Mr Wilson himself found out what the Good Friday Agreement means is not immediately clear, as by the time of that historic day in 1998, the DUP had already walked out, having refused to sign up to it.
Northern Irish politics is extravagantly complex, but what is a simple fact is that the DUP want a hard Brexit but no hard border.
It is an unsolvable problem for somebody else to solve, their role being to sweep in periodically and say “no” to the latest extravagantly complex attempt to meet their impossible demands. The stages of evolution to find their unicorn first involved Theresa May placing a traffic cone on a donkey. Now it’s been painted white, sprayed in glitter and Iain Duncan Smith is said to be exploring “technological solutions” on how to bestow it with the gift of flight but it still won’t do.
It’s none of these things, really. It’s the sheer ingenuity of likening Brexit to an ascent of Mount Everest. On the unlikely chance we do indeed make it to the top, Cummings, Gove Johnson and co will pause and breathe in the wonder of their stunning achievement. And then it will be a matter of seconds before it is stunningly obvious that it’s absolutely terrifying up here and if we don’t get down right away we’re all going to die.
At time of writing, customs is the sticking point. How do you keep the Irish border completely open, and still somehow prevent people who want to dodge paying VAT (ie the entire population) from driving goods across it?
The short answer remains the same as the long one. It can’t be done. If it could be done, Norway and Sweden would have done it years ago. It can’t be done.
Oh well. Who even cares anymore? It’s all auto-ironic now. All the rest of us can do is hang about, watching the doors shut, listening to the walls bang, waiting for the idiots finally to give their stamp of idiotic approval to the single stupidest thing any once sensible country has ever done.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-boris-johnson-mark-francois-steve-baker-dup-negotiations-brussels-eu-summit-a9159211.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed
Yet this seems to show that if one side were in the minority then there would be little they could do about it.
So lets say the Unionists were unhappy with the new arrangements, they could vote to discontinue them.
This may be because the new arrangements were badly affecting their businesses, for example.
The new arrangements will continue, unless a majority vote against.
So if the Unionists were in the minority, they would be stuck.
Also, terminating the new arrangements seem only to lead to a land border, in breach of The Good Friday Agreement.
"Consent" would not seem to be a valid description.
Legal experts know that Boris Johnson's EU deal still doesn't cut it – here's why
I would remind MPs to look behind the shiny bright façade of the deal and examine its contents. Yes, it is a deal but what will it really mean?
the EU is not happy with the terms of the future trade relationship, then the UK still risks leaving without a deal in 2020.
Below is a quick summary of the effects of the Johnson deal:
Goods
In terms of goods, old paragraph 23 from May’s deal – “the United Kingdom will consider aligning with Union rules in relevant areas” – has been deleted. That is a crucial difference. Rather than having (as per May’s deal) a close “economic partnership” and a trading relationship that is “as close as possible” with the EU, the UK will now be a distinct market, setting its own rules and trading on a hands-off Canada-style basis. There will be no single market or customs area, market access will be much more restricted and trade will not be frictionless.
Contrary to previous Tory desires to reduce regulatory burdens, there will be more customs checks and red tape when it comes to UK exports to the EU. UK standards will most likely be lower than the EU so some goods may not be able to be marketed and sold in 31 states if they do not meet EU standards. Companies will have to comply with multiple rules and redesign their products for different markets. Or they will decide to comply with EU standards anyway. Products may become more expensive (due to lower economies of scale) or face delays.
In terms of EU imports to the UK, they are most likely to be of a superior standard so will meet the UK minimum requirements. They’re likely to be cheaper (larger scale and one-stop production for both markets) and transit faster. This may put UK businesses at a competitive disadvantage.
You also have to analyse this scenario in a wider WTO context – we still don’t know whether the UK will apply zero tariffs for imports from the rest of the world or insist on product standards. UK agriculture and manufacturing could face a double whammy if sales are undercut by cheaper EU and foreign imports.
Maintaining standards
There is a new section XIV – Clause 77 – that requires the UK to uphold the common high standards applicable in the EU and UK in the areas of state aid, competition, social and employment standards, environment, climate change and relevant tax matters. The UK cannot undermine the EU level playing field by allowing circumvention of EU rules.
This sounds positive, but this is a non-binding commitment, not enforceable until written into an FTA. The UK will no longer be committing to the EU rule book but just a loose commitment to observe high standards – whether from the EU or the rest of the world. In many areas, the EU standards are replicated elsewhere, for example, the EU competition rules are being copied in Hong Kong, China and Africa, so the idea that the UK will be able to move away from them when dealing with other countries is wholly misleading
Agencies
EU rules for regulated industries are often made through regulatory networks and agencies where the UK currently enjoys full participation in rule-making. Now, the UK has downgraded its involvement to exploring “the possibility of cooperation” within the EMA (European Medicines Agency), EBA (European Banking Authority) and EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency). The wording is weak and offers no guarantees. For other networks, like telecoms, energy, transport and chemicals, the wording is feebler, with access dependent on its extent of alignment and cooperation. It is clear that the UK will only have observer status – meaning that we will be rule-takers without any say in the formulation of policy or actual decision-making regarding authorisations or sanctions.
Services
As over 80 per cent of the UK economy is driven by services, which has been a huge success story for UK business in the EU, there is the risk of severe dereliction of duty if MPs do not focus on the service industry. This is not just financial services but digital broadcasting, insurance, legal and accounting advice, consultancy, e-commerce, data and transportation services, which to date are provided on a pan-European basis across all 31 EU/EEA states.
Here, the Johnson and May deals are identical. Services will no longer benefit from full passporting in all 31 EU/EEA states. Instead, they will be relegated to the WTO framework with possible add-ons from a Canada-style free trade agreement, which are vastly inferior to the Lisbon Treaty. So, what does this mean?
85 per cent of our economy (services) will effectively be in the same position as a no-deal scenario.
WTO terms for services are rudimentary compared with the EU rules – they allow minimum access to markets and prohibition on direct discrimination. Host states still retain discretionary power to impose regulatory barriers and standards.
There is a limited equivalence regime for financial services.
When it comes to digital services, there is no guarantee of rule of origin so broadcasters and programmers (Sky, Netflix) will need to move registration and staff to other member states.
In e-commerce, there is limited cooperation on rules but no guarantees. Courier services are not covered, so one impact may be that Amazon cannot provide next day deliveries from any order fulfilled from an EU member state.
Many sectors are dependent upon the EU’s state of the art passporting regimes – eg life insurance, travel insurance, health insurance, car insurance, financial services, architects, doctors, nurses, teachers and lawyers. They are all governed by their home state rules and do not have to comply with 31 different sets of requirements.
What this will mean in practice? As an example, a UK law firm will no longer be able to provide advice and legal representation across multiple states. Instead, their lawyer will have to requalify, establish and comply with Belgian rules and pay registration and insurance fees in both countries. That will not give the right to practise from Belgium across other EU countries.
According to the Law Society, the UK legal sector is the largest in the EU and contributed more than £26bn to the economy in 2017. EU law firms are keen to replace the UK’s success. The APPG on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended that this “devastating” impact should be “avoided at all costs”. That story is replicated across multiple different business sectors.
Governance and diplomacy
The ruling from the CJEU will be binding on the UK and there will be sanctions in terms of suspended access to markets and financial compensation if it does not adhere to the ruling.
All in all, when Johnson did his victory lap in the European parliament yesterday, I rather think his fellow leaders were celebrating their upper hand in the negotiations and the concessions accepted by the UK in the last desperate hours. Johnson set out to procure a Rolls Royce but came back with a second-hand Reliant Robin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boris-johnson-brexit-deal-eu-economy-finance-legal-a9161776.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/no-delays-vows-johnson-humiliating-190542868.html
Labour to back bid for second Brexit referendum this week
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer says party will whip MPs to support backbench move to secure Final Say vote
Remainers are being whipped up, but come the day anti democracy supporters and remainers
both march, things will turn really ugly.
That old excuse about being misled by Brexit supporters at the time of the referendum, is absolutely no different to all the things promised in manifestos that are never kept.
It’s by no coincidence that suddenly parties come up with what are supposedly good ideas when an election is forthcoming.
They take UK citizens as gullible mugs.
I need this Chilly Billy past in the Commons.
Once a member of Parliament decides he or she, or even LGBT, no longer wish to serve for the party that they were elected for, they are out the door,bog off!
Then an instant by-election in their constituency.
There’s a dozen or more besides Letwin that that applies to.
Scandalous behavior!
There's much speculation about whether Boris Johnson has missed his best chance to get his Brexit deal passed without radical changes, after Saturday's setback in the Commons.
Analysis by the Financial Times suggests the prime minister may have a majority of five for the agreement in its current form - if Commons Speaker John Bercow allows MPs a straightforward vote on it.
The Daily Telegraph says it's "still anyone's guess" whether Mr Johnson has the numbers to get an agreement through. It believes the prime minister is braced for another week of "parliamentary chicanery", and could try once again to force a snap general election if he fails to stop the legislation accompanying the deal being amended.
A senior source in the DUP tells the paper it will be "guerrilla warfare", amid suggestions the Northern Irish party which has propped up the minority Conservative government could support a Labour amendment to keep the UK in a customs union with the EU.
"Ditched!" is the caption accompanying the Guardian's cartoon, which shows DUP leader Arlene Foster and ex-Conservative MP Sir Oliver Letwin digging a large hole for Boris Johnson and his advisor, Dominic Cummings, as they hold aloft the three letters the prime minister sent to Brussels at the weekend.
Mr Johnson had forwarded an unsigned photocopy of a request for a delay to Brexit that he had been compelled to send by Parliament, along with a signed personal note saying he did not want a postponement, and a cover note.
In its editorial, the Guardian says MPs "rightly put the brakes on" the government's Brexit deal on Saturday - and must now "hold their nerve to subject it to forensic scrutiny" in the coming days. The Financial Times agrees, arguing that if Mr Johnson is so confident his deal is a "great" one, he should set out a clear, detailed vision for it.
The New Statesman website thinks Mr Johnson faces an uphill struggle to pass an unchanged agreement, regardless of what the opposition do.
"The government's coalition for a deal is already unstable," writes Patrick Maguire, who adds it was "always going to be difficult" to keep Tory hardliners like Bill Cash and moderate Labour MPs in Leave-voting constituencies united.
The Sun anticipates a "fierce week of parliamentary warfare" as Labour tries to bolt another referendum onto the deal. However, HuffPost UK thinks a different amendment - to keep the UK in a customs union with the EU - has more chance of success, as the numbers for a new public vote "still do not seem to be there".
Other publications condemn the prime minister's opponents. The Daily Express accuses Labour of trying to "torpedo" the deal. "How dare they!" is its front page headline. And the Daily Mail describes the customs union amendment as a "plot to wreck Brexit".
Some are simply exasperated by events over the last 48 hours. "Dear God, please make it stop," begs Judith Woods in a column on the Daily Telegraph's front page. Borrowing a phrase from the prime minister, she adds: "We will all be dead in a ditch if this purgatorial anguish goes on much longer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-50119439
Lots of fingers have been pointed at Oliver Letwin, and much nonsense has been talked about him, with little understanding being shown.
My view is that this criticism is idiotic.
Boris was expecting a Parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Agreement on Saturday.
His motives for this were two fold.
Firstly, if it got through, he could have avoided sending the extension letter to the EU, and saving himself from the embarrassment this has caused, purely because of his claims that he would never send this letter.
Secondly, he was trying to get the deal passed without giving MPs the opportunity to scrutinise it.
Brexit is probably the most important decision for our country in a generation. Yet Boris wanted to get it passed after little discussion, and no scrutiny.
I listened to an MP yesterday that pointed out that a Finance Bill, will usually be debated for 20 days, and that an important EU Treaty has been known to be debated for double that time.
Boris brought the deal back on Friday, and wanted it passed on Saturday.
All Mr Letwin did was produce an amendment that stopped this happening until the Brexit Legislation is passed allowing for some reasonable discussion, and scrutiny.
He intends to vote for the deal, and voted for Theresa Mays deal 3 times, something that the PM, and the likes of Rees-Mogg, didn't do.
So Mr Letwin has voted in favour of leaving at every possible opportunity.
He doesn't trust the PM which is completely justifiable.
He said at the DUP conference he would never consider a border in the Irish Sea, which he now has implemented.
He also assured a Brexit fanatic, that leaving with no deal would still be possible at the end of next year.
Does it strike you as idiotic, that we still don't know where we will end up, three and a half years later?
How could the leave side know what they were voting for, when we still don't know what we will get?
Take the backstop. This was Theresa Mays choice of how to avoid a hard border in Ireland.
Boris has chosen something else, which is less popular with the people of NI, and the DUP.
Many will not support either solution.
There are moves to add a customs union to the deal.
This may provide a better long term solution to the Irish border, but will not be entertained by those wishing to pursue an independent trade policy.
So I think it fair to say that Brexit is a series of choices. The problem is that many people that are faced with a choice of two options, are not in favour of either. They want the benefits of both options, but without any obligations.
I don't know if this is the same these days because I haven't been caught for ages.
If you chose the fixed penalty you got your £80 fine, which you had to pay pretty much immediately. and your points, end of.
If you chose to go to court, it would usually result in a much bigger fine, court costs, and solicitors fees if you used one.
When it comes to Brexit, everyone seems to be saying that they only want an £80 fine, aren't prepared to pay it immediately, don't really want to go to court, pay any costs, and have a solicitor provided free of charge.
Not many people seem to be able to get their heads around, the fact that in many cases it is strictly one thing or another.
It was obvious that concessions had to be made to have any chance of leaving with a deal.
Is there anybody in the U.K. that doesn’t know there will be a downside to leaving the EU?
How long that will last is anybody’s guess.
Any type of deal will affect certain people’s jobs and wealth.
I’d expect people to fight their corner, obviously, but upholding democracy is far more important.
It seems that everyone has their own agenda, including newspapers, of which I haven’t purchased for 25years.
Remember Murdock sidling up to Blair because he was after control of Sky ? So his papers had a relentless onslaught of the Tories. Then , as he doesn’t get a result from Blair, he switches his onslaught in his papers towards Labour.
I think it’s best to think and draw your on conclusions, than to take in any media hype and sensationalism.
And I still think those members that have left the parties with which they were elected to represent, shouldn’t be allowed in the chamber.
They were elected to represent a party and not themselves.