Says the half-German artist. Who has decided he would rather be German for tax purposes.
Fair enough. I respect every man's right to decide his nationality based on taxation. If that is more important than being British, that is his decision. That and sucking up to the French Government, offering to do an artwork slagging off Britain. In return for large amounts of cash, obviously.
Says the half-German artist. Who has decided he would rather be German for tax purposes.
Fair enough. I respect every man's right to decide his nationality based on taxation. If that is more important than being British, that is his decision. That and sucking up to the French Government, offering to do an artwork slagging off Britain. In return for large amounts of cash, obviously.
Says the half-German artist. Who has decided he would rather be German for tax purposes.
Fair enough. I respect every man's right to decide his nationality based on taxation. If that is more important than being British, that is his decision. That and sucking up to the French Government, offering to do an artwork slagging off Britain. In return for large amounts of cash, obviously.
I also look forward to him giving back his OBE...
‘Weakness’ of UK position shaped Northern Ireland protocol negotiations, David Frost says
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Struggling fish and chip shops to ask Norway for more fish
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
All this is very clear to me. Both Boris, and the DUP, were against the backstop. If the backstop had been agreed there would be no Irish Sea border.
What has clouded the issue up to now is that Boris and his minions have been threatening to rip up the protocol. This has obviously placated the DUP, as they took them at their word. Although they are now fed up of waiting for this to occur.
It has recently become clear that Boris, and his minions didnt have any intention of ripping up the protocol, their aim is to reduce the number of customs checks. Many people will think that this is a logical step. As you, yourself have argued. The DUP are adamant that they will not accept a border at any price, as Boris promised.
I think the Boris designed protocol, defies all logic. There has to be a border between different customs territories. Even if we had left the EU with no trade deal, a border would have to have been created. No border on the island of Ireland was possible. The only other place possible was the Irish Sea. Once you place the border between the two customs territories in the Irish Sea, you are forced to leave NI, in the EU customs territory. Which is what we did. If you then maintain the position that NI is part of the SM/CU, and also part of the UK internal market, it forces NI into the impossible position of having to comply with two differing sets of rules. This in itself was bound to cause chaos.
I think the protocol is the botched result of trying to keep the Tory factions happy. The DUP were stupid to go along with it. Although they will probably argue that they were only stupid in believing the Boris lies. Brexit is nowhere near done, and surely everyone can see that. The Boris lies are simply coming back to bite him. I think the only weak negotiating position was created by trying to keep all the Tory factions happy.
I wish I had a £1 for every time we heard that we were negotiating from a position of strength, because the Germans will be desperate to sell us their cars, the Italians their wine etc. The protocol is the result of botched thinking.
The mistake that many are making, is that they are arguing that the EU are insisting on too many customs checks. When the real problem is that there is a border, and any checks. For many people in NI, it is about identity.
I think that the EU have negotiated in good faith. The number of customs checks may seem excessive to some. Although nobody seems to be accusing them of introducing new rules to punish us for our audacity in leaving. Therefore they are just implementing the rules that applied during our membership, that we were obviously aware of. We designed the protocol to meet our needs. We just want the benefits, without complying with the rules. Cake and eating it, yet again. I dont go along with the weak negotiating position excuse for the protocol, as the results could clearly have been foreseen.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
All this is very clear to me. Both Boris, and the DUP, were against the backstop. If the backstop had been agreed there would be no Irish Sea border.
What has clouded the issue up to now is that Boris and his minions have been threatening to rip up the protocol. This has obviously placated the DUP, as they took them at their word. Although they are now fed up of waiting for this to occur.
It has recently become clear that Boris, and his minions didnt have any intention of ripping up the protocol, their aim is to reduce the number of customs checks. Many people will think that this is a logical step. As you, yourself have argued. The DUP are adamant that they will not accept a border at any price, as Boris promised.
I think the Boris designed protocol, defies all logic. There has to be a border between different customs territories. Even if we had left the EU with no trade deal, a border would have to have been created. No border on the island of Ireland was possible. The only other place possible was the Irish Sea. Once you place the border between the two customs territories in the Irish Sea, you are forced to leave NI, in the EU customs territory. Which is what we did. If you then maintain the position that NI is part of the SM/CU, and also part of the UK internal market, it forces NI into the impossible position of having to comply with two differing sets of rules. This in itself was bound to cause chaos.
I think the protocol is the botched result of trying to keep the Tory factions happy. The DUP were stupid to go along with it. Although they will probably argue that they were only stupid in believing the Boris lies. Brexit is nowhere near done, and surely everyone can see that. The Boris lies are simply coming back to bite him. I think the only weak negotiating position was created by trying to keep all the Tory factions happy.
I wish I had a £1 for every time we heard that we were negotiating from a position of strength, because the Germans will be desperate to sell us their cars, the Italians their wine etc. The protocol is the result of botched thinking.
The mistake that many are making, is that they are arguing that the EU are insisting on too many customs checks. When the real problem is that there is a border, and any checks. For many people in NI, it is about identity.
I think that the EU have negotiated in good faith. The number of customs checks may seem excessive to some. Although nobody seems to be accusing them of introducing new rules to punish us for our audacity in leaving. Therefore they are just implementing the rules that applied during our membership, that we were obviously aware of. We designed the protocol to meet our needs. We just want the benefits, without complying with the rules. Cake and eating it, yet again. I dont go along with the weak negotiating position excuse for the protocol, as the results could clearly have been foreseen.
I think that Boris may have naively thought that if he get the customs checks reduced to a minimum, that nobody in NI, and in particular the DUP, would notice the border. However unlikely this may be. And that he could continue to deny its existence.
You keep talking about the Backstop as though it solves problems. It would not.
What we have now is that the 65 million+ in the GB have left the EU. While the 1.885 million in NI are left in the limbo created by having the Single Market as a temporary measure while we work out what to do.
The Backstop had all 67 million+ of the UK temporarily in the Single Market. While we work out a coherent way forward outside of the EU in the future. Which would have been even more difficult than what we have now.
Me? I would have preferred the Backstop. As would you. But the point is that that is not what the Majority, in a Democracy, wanted. As proved by Parliament, plus the last General Election, as well as the Referendum.
Do I like it? No. But that's what Democracy can lead to. Which is a price worth paying when the alternative is to abandon Democracy.
Or to pretend that the EU will just let us back in. Or that there are not vested interests in the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, that are just as much of an obstacle as the Government/the DUP.
You keep talking about the Backstop as though it solves problems. It would not.
It would have solved all the problems in NI, and given the whole of the UK, what has been described by most Tory MPs, the best of both worlds, currently only enjoyed by NI. It seems silly to say that the protocol gives NI, the best of both worlds, and in the next breath, want to rip it up.
What we have now is that the 65 million+ in the GB have left the EU. While the 1.885 million in NI are left in the limbo created by having the Single Market as a temporary measure while we work out what to do.
This may well result in the break up of the UK. How do you get them out of the SM? If we rip up the EU trade deal, a border will be still required. You cant put a land border on the island of Ireland.
The Backstop had all 67 million+ of the UK temporarily in the Single Market. While we work out a coherent way forward outside of the EU in the future. Which would have been even more difficult than what we have now.
The NI economy is currently outperforming the rest of the UK. So the best of both worlds argument stands up. So it is hard to see that the whole of the UK enjoying the same benefits, as a bad thing. The backstop would have allowed for contemplation of the way forward. It allowed us to pursue trade deals independently. Kept the UK together, as there was no border. Therefore solved all the problems we are currently experiencing. Stormont would have been up and running.
Me? I would have preferred the Backstop. As would you. But the point is that that is not what the Majority, in a Democracy, wanted. As proved by Parliament, plus the last General Election, as well as the Referendum.
I dont think that there is any proof of this as the referendum merely established that there was a very small majority in favour of leaving the EU, and not the manner in which we left. I think the Brexit that we chose was more to do with satisfying the likes of the ERG, rather than the electorate.
Do I like it? No. But that's what Democracy can lead to. Which is a price worth paying when the alternative is to abandon Democracy.
The fact that Boris chose the protocol, rather than the backstop, was nothing to do with democracy.
Or to pretend that the EU will just let us back in. Or that there are not vested interests in the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, that are just as much of an obstacle as the Government/the DUP.
Not more-but just as much.
I havent a clue. As you have said it was a democratic vote that got us out. However a better deal could have been done. The backstop would have allowed us to leave, and time to contemplate the future. A far better position than we are in today. It will be interesting to see a Labour solution, if they can win the next election.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Do you think Labour could be forced into a coalition? Labour/LibDems. Or even Labour/LibDems/SNP. If so, where do you think this may lead? Second EU referendum? Would this seem appropriate after our experience of what leaving actually meant? This would at least make it impossible for the Leave Campaign lies to be repeated. Rejoining would be likely to make the break up of the UK less likely. The NI border would be removed. The DUP would have to get back to work.
I think that if a second referendum took place that there would be a much bigger role played by businesses that have suffered after we left. Many of them would be pitching their own work forces to vote in favour of rejoining. I am sure that many people will have changed their minds.
Alternatively they could just choose to repair the deal.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Do you think Labour could be forced into a coalition? Labour/LibDems. Or even Labour/LibDems/SNP. If so, where do you think this may lead? Second EU referendum? Would this seem appropriate after our experience of what leaving actually meant? This would at least make it impossible for the Leave Campaign lies to be repeated. Rejoining would be likely to make the break up of the UK less likely. The NI border would be removed. The DUP would have to get back to work.
I think that if a second referendum took place that there would be a much bigger role played by businesses that have suffered after we left. Many of them would be pitching their own work forces to vote in favour of rejoining. I am sure that many people will have changed their minds.
Alternatively they could just choose to repair the deal.
Labour firstly need a coherent strategy on Europe.
I believe any proposal relating to rejoining the EU would be a massive vote loser. Joining the Single Market? Possibly-but would probably need to be in a different form to Norway/Canada-simply because our economy, and the size of trade to/from the EU, is massively bigger.
Coalition with LibDems/SNP? Probably either, but not both. The logical price would be some form of concessions regarding the Single Market/an agreed free vote and campaign for/against Independence at a fixed date in the future.
A 2nd EU referendum is a total non-starter. Not least because the 2016 referendum was the 2nd. The "leavers" waited 41 years for their chance. Not 6.
The DUP are on a job share with Sinn Fein. At least 1 will always find a reason not to work. The only time they agree is when both refuse to work.
Change with regard to the Protocol is inevitable. The key question will be whether it can be achieved without a return to the 1970s.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Do you think Labour could be forced into a coalition? Labour/LibDems. Or even Labour/LibDems/SNP. If so, where do you think this may lead? Second EU referendum? Would this seem appropriate after our experience of what leaving actually meant? This would at least make it impossible for the Leave Campaign lies to be repeated. Rejoining would be likely to make the break up of the UK less likely. The NI border would be removed. The DUP would have to get back to work.
I think that if a second referendum took place that there would be a much bigger role played by businesses that have suffered after we left. Many of them would be pitching their own work forces to vote in favour of rejoining. I am sure that many people will have changed their minds.
Alternatively they could just choose to repair the deal.
Labour firstly need a coherent strategy on Europe.
Or at least a strategy.
I believe any proposal relating to rejoining the EU would be a massive vote loser. Joining the Single Market? Possibly-but would probably need to be in a different form to Norway/Canada-simply because our economy, and the size of trade to/from the EU, is massively bigger.
I think that it could be sold to the public without proposing to rejoin the EU. It could initially be proposed as a confirmation vote, that would ensure that the majority were happy with the decision to leave, subsequent to the experience of what leaving actually meant.
Coalition with LibDems/SNP? Probably either, but not both. The logical price would be some form of concessions regarding the Single Market/an agreed free vote and campaign for/against Independence at a fixed date in the future.
I think that the promise of a second EU referendum damages the chances of Scottish Independence, and a United Ireland. I have no doubt that less Scots would vote for Independence if we rejoined the EU, and there would also be less chance of a United Ireland, if the border was removed.
A 2nd EU referendum is a total non-starter. Not least because the 2016 referendum was the 2nd. The "leavers" waited 41 years for their chance. Not 6.
How long do you need to realise a mistake? Would the public really want to argue with a political party that offered them the opportunity to just make sure that they had made a correct decision, particularly if at the time it was announced they werent coming down on either side. Although they obviously would when campaigning began,
The DUP are on a job share with Sinn Fein. At least 1 will always find a reason not to work. The only time they agree is when both refuse to work.
At least it would remove the DUP excuse, and make a United Ireland less likely.
Change with regard to the Protocol is inevitable. The key question will be whether it can be achieved without a return to the 1970s.
The change to the protocol is likely to be less customs checks, and unlikely to be the removal of the border. This means an impasse.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Do you think Labour could be forced into a coalition? Labour/LibDems. Or even Labour/LibDems/SNP. If so, where do you think this may lead? Second EU referendum? Would this seem appropriate after our experience of what leaving actually meant? This would at least make it impossible for the Leave Campaign lies to be repeated. Rejoining would be likely to make the break up of the UK less likely. The NI border would be removed. The DUP would have to get back to work.
I think that if a second referendum took place that there would be a much bigger role played by businesses that have suffered after we left. Many of them would be pitching their own work forces to vote in favour of rejoining. I am sure that many people will have changed their minds.
Alternatively they could just choose to repair the deal.
Labour firstly need a coherent strategy on Europe.
Or at least a strategy.
I believe any proposal relating to rejoining the EU would be a massive vote loser. Joining the Single Market? Possibly-but would probably need to be in a different form to Norway/Canada-simply because our economy, and the size of trade to/from the EU, is massively bigger.
I think that it could be sold to the public without proposing to rejoin the EU. It could initially be proposed as a confirmation vote, that would ensure that the majority were happy with the decision to leave, subsequent to the experience of what leaving actually meant.
Coalition with LibDems/SNP? Probably either, but not both. The logical price would be some form of concessions regarding the Single Market/an agreed free vote and campaign for/against Independence at a fixed date in the future.
I think that the promise of a second EU referendum damages the chances of Scottish Independence, and a United Ireland. I have no doubt that less Scots would vote for Independence if we rejoined the EU, and there would also be less chance of a United Ireland, if the border was removed.
A 2nd EU referendum is a total non-starter. Not least because the 2016 referendum was the 2nd. The "leavers" waited 41 years for their chance. Not 6.
How long do you need to realise a mistake? Would the public really want to argue with a political party that offered them the opportunity to just make sure that they had made a correct decision, particularly if at the time it was announced they werent coming down on either side. Although they obviously would when campaigning began,
The DUP are on a job share with Sinn Fein. At least 1 will always find a reason not to work. The only time they agree is when both refuse to work.
At least it would remove the DUP excuse, and make a United Ireland less likely.
Change with regard to the Protocol is inevitable. The key question will be whether it can be achieved without a return to the 1970s.
The change to the protocol is likely to be less customs checks, and unlikely to be the removal of the border. This means an impasse.
Also if you made it say 2 years after the next election it would be 10 years from the last one.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Boris Johnson warned of new clash with MPs over N Ireland protocol
Boris Johnson has been warned that his plan to rip up post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland will provoke a new row with Conservative MPs without necessarily restoring the region’s power-sharing executive.
Meanwhile Jesse Norman, the former Treasury minister, told Johnson this week that any breach of the Northern Irish protocol would be “economically very damaging, politically foolhardy and almost certainly illegal”.
The bill will also run into fierce opposition from the pro-EU peers in the House of Lords, and the government could face a challenge over the legality of the bill under international law.
The UK government has obtained legal advice arguing that the bill to override the protocol would be considered legal under international law, based on a higher obligation to protect the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement, but that view is expected to be challenged.
Whitehall insiders say that initial legal advice obtained by attorney-general Suella Braverman had warned that the government’s case for justifying unilateral action to override the protocol, rather than using provisions contained within it, was legally weak.
There is some truth in what Lord Frost says about the dangers to the Good Friday Agreement as things currently stand.
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
Struggling fish and chip shops to ask Norway for more fish
Your love of the EU blinds you to the other side of the coin.
It may well be the case that 2 sovereign states will diverge in methods of production. Those are choices that sovereign states are free to make-provided, of course, that you are not ruled from a super-state.
Ireland will, as new diktats emerge from Brussels, gradually diverge from the 2016 status quo. As will we. But no-one ever mentions that.
Border checks for goods from Ireland to Northern Ireland? 0. Because we believe in and trust the Good Friday Agreement. And have always sought to treat Ireland more favourably than any other trading nation.
Northern Ireland to Ireland? Officially close to 0, but only because GB is forced to carry out checks on goods "exported" to Northern Ireland, in case those goods might end up in Ireland.
The Irish people are not allowed to choose what goods they choose to buy.
Because the EU will not let them. Because that is the way Protectionism works in the EU. It does not seek proportionality as part of a move towards free trade. It seeks to impose its standards on others. Whether they like it or not. And whether their member states like it or not.
It is about time the US Government stopped wishing they were Irish Republicans, and listened to both sides of a debate.
Brexit in name only' Nigel Farage warns over Labour plot to 're-join EU's single market'
"And my fear is, if we finish up with Boris Johnson staying as leader, if we finish up with a coalition. It could even be a minority government led by Keir Starmer. After the next election, he'll get support from some in the conservative benches and we'll get dragged back into the EU's single market."
You keep talking about the Backstop as though it solves problems. It would not.
What we have now is that the 65 million+ in the GB have left the EU. While the 1.885 million in NI are left in the limbo created by having the Single Market as a temporary measure while we work out what to do.
The Backstop had all 67 million+ of the UK temporarily in the Single Market. While we work out a coherent way forward outside of the EU in the future. Which would have been even more difficult than what we have now.
Me? I would have preferred the Backstop. As would you. But the point is that that is not what the Majority, in a Democracy, wanted. As proved by Parliament, plus the last General Election, as well as the Referendum.
Do I like it? No. But that's what Democracy can lead to. Which is a price worth paying when the alternative is to abandon Democracy.
Or to pretend that the EU will just let us back in. Or that there are not vested interests in the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, that are just as much of an obstacle as the Government/the DUP.
Not more-but just as much.
NI Protocol legislation not being used to prop up PM, minister insists
Comments
Says the half-German artist. Who has decided he would rather be German for tax purposes.
Fair enough. I respect every man's right to decide his nationality based on taxation. If that is more important than being British, that is his decision. That and sucking up to the French Government, offering to do an artwork slagging off Britain. In return for large amounts of cash, obviously.
I also look forward to him giving back his OBE...
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/weakness-uk-position-shaped-northern-210016850.html
But the problems leading up to the Protocol were:-
1. There was a political imperative for the Cons to "get Brexit done"-at pretty much any cost. Which was always going to cause weakness in our negotiating stance
2. We had "negotiators" who were either lazy (eg Davis) or clueless (eg Frost)
The Protocol is just a polished tu rd.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/struggling-fish-and-chip-shops-to-ask-norway-for-more-fish/ar-AAY80Y7?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=f253e38aa2df4a42a06fe47a8e6746f0
Both Boris, and the DUP, were against the backstop.
If the backstop had been agreed there would be no Irish Sea border.
What has clouded the issue up to now is that Boris and his minions have been threatening to rip up the protocol.
This has obviously placated the DUP, as they took them at their word.
Although they are now fed up of waiting for this to occur.
It has recently become clear that Boris, and his minions didnt have any intention of ripping up the protocol, their aim is to reduce the number of customs checks.
Many people will think that this is a logical step.
As you, yourself have argued.
The DUP are adamant that they will not accept a border at any price, as Boris promised.
I think the Boris designed protocol, defies all logic.
There has to be a border between different customs territories.
Even if we had left the EU with no trade deal, a border would have to have been created.
No border on the island of Ireland was possible.
The only other place possible was the Irish Sea.
Once you place the border between the two customs territories in the Irish Sea, you are forced to leave NI, in the EU customs territory.
Which is what we did.
If you then maintain the position that NI is part of the SM/CU, and also part of the UK internal market, it forces NI into the impossible position of having to comply with two differing sets of rules.
This in itself was bound to cause chaos.
I think the protocol is the botched result of trying to keep the Tory factions happy.
The DUP were stupid to go along with it.
Although they will probably argue that they were only stupid in believing the Boris lies.
Brexit is nowhere near done, and surely everyone can see that.
The Boris lies are simply coming back to bite him.
I think the only weak negotiating position was created by trying to keep all the Tory factions happy.
I wish I had a £1 for every time we heard that we were negotiating from a position of strength, because the Germans will be desperate to sell us their cars, the Italians their wine etc.
The protocol is the result of botched thinking.
The mistake that many are making, is that they are arguing that the EU are insisting on too many customs checks.
When the real problem is that there is a border, and any checks.
For many people in NI, it is about identity.
I think that the EU have negotiated in good faith.
The number of customs checks may seem excessive to some.
Although nobody seems to be accusing them of introducing new rules to punish us for our audacity in leaving.
Therefore they are just implementing the rules that applied during our membership, that we were obviously aware of.
We designed the protocol to meet our needs.
We just want the benefits, without complying with the rules.
Cake and eating it, yet again.
I dont go along with the weak negotiating position excuse for the protocol, as the results could clearly have been foreseen.
However unlikely this may be.
And that he could continue to deny its existence.
What we have now is that the 65 million+ in the GB have left the EU. While the 1.885 million in NI are left in the limbo created by having the Single Market as a temporary measure while we work out what to do.
The Backstop had all 67 million+ of the UK temporarily in the Single Market. While we work out a coherent way forward outside of the EU in the future. Which would have been even more difficult than what we have now.
Me? I would have preferred the Backstop. As would you. But the point is that that is not what the Majority, in a Democracy, wanted. As proved by Parliament, plus the last General Election, as well as the Referendum.
Do I like it? No. But that's what Democracy can lead to. Which is a price worth paying when the alternative is to abandon Democracy.
Or to pretend that the EU will just let us back in. Or that there are not vested interests in the EU in general, and Ireland in particular, that are just as much of an obstacle as the Government/the DUP.
Not more-but just as much.
As you have said it was a democratic vote that got us out.
However a better deal could have been done.
The backstop would have allowed us to leave, and time to contemplate the future.
A far better position than we are in today.
It will be interesting to see a Labour solution, if they can win the next election.
Labour/LibDems.
Or even Labour/LibDems/SNP.
If so, where do you think this may lead?
Second EU referendum?
Would this seem appropriate after our experience of what leaving actually meant?
This would at least make it impossible for the Leave Campaign lies to be repeated.
Rejoining would be likely to make the break up of the UK less likely.
The NI border would be removed.
The DUP would have to get back to work.
I think that if a second referendum took place that there would be a much bigger role played by businesses that have suffered after we left.
Many of them would be pitching their own work forces to vote in favour of rejoining.
I am sure that many people will have changed their minds.
Alternatively they could just choose to repair the deal.
I believe any proposal relating to rejoining the EU would be a massive vote loser. Joining the Single Market? Possibly-but would probably need to be in a different form to Norway/Canada-simply because our economy, and the size of trade to/from the EU, is massively bigger.
Coalition with LibDems/SNP? Probably either, but not both. The logical price would be some form of concessions regarding the Single Market/an agreed free vote and campaign for/against Independence at a fixed date in the future.
A 2nd EU referendum is a total non-starter. Not least because the 2016 referendum was the 2nd. The "leavers" waited 41 years for their chance. Not 6.
The DUP are on a job share with Sinn Fein. At least 1 will always find a reason not to work. The only time they agree is when both refuse to work.
Change with regard to the Protocol is inevitable. The key question will be whether it can be achieved without a return to the 1970s.
This means an impasse.
Boris Johnson has been warned that his plan to rip up post-Brexit trade rules for Northern Ireland will provoke a new row with Conservative MPs without necessarily restoring the region’s power-sharing executive.
Meanwhile Jesse Norman, the former Treasury minister, told Johnson this week that any breach of the Northern Irish protocol would be “economically very damaging, politically foolhardy and almost certainly illegal”.
The bill will also run into fierce opposition from the pro-EU peers in the House of Lords, and the government could face a challenge over the legality of the bill under international law.
The UK government has obtained legal advice arguing that the bill to override the protocol would be considered legal under international law, based on a higher obligation to protect the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement, but that view is expected to be challenged.
Whitehall insiders say that initial legal advice obtained by attorney-general Suella Braverman had warned that the government’s case for justifying unilateral action to override the protocol, rather than using provisions contained within it, was legally weak.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/boris-johnson-warned-of-new-clash-with-mps-over-n-ireland-protocol/ar-AAYcvzV?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cbf631ece00140f3b4139dae6243ce64
How is that working out then?
"And my fear is, if we finish up with Boris Johnson staying as leader, if we finish up with a coalition. It could even be a minority government led by Keir Starmer. After the next election, he'll get support from some in the conservative benches and we'll get dragged back into the EU's single market."
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brexit-in-name-only-nigel-farage-warns-over-labour-plot-to-re-join-eu-s-single-market/ar-AAYbR9R?bk=1&bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=a434e20af39d40e78e40e566f2cb4c62
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/northern-ireland-protocol-government-postpones-publication-of-reforming-legislation-while-uup-leader-doug-beattie-warns-of-pending-unrest/ar-AAYeQUR?bk=1&bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=6e8ffe31f5b04b13a6ecf259f85f1473
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ni-protocol-legislation-not-being-used-to-prop-up-pm-minister-insists/ar-AAYdBPV?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=53b4b3fd010f4422b635beaa4946f270
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/europe-sees-boris-johnson-as-a-showman-buffoon-but-they-re-still-glued-to-the-soap-opera/ar-AAYcrlK?bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=53b4b3fd010f4422b635beaa4946f270
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/brexit-live-historic-low-point-tensions-erupt-as-irish-pm-savages-bad-faith-britain/ar-AAYcrmx?bk=1&bk=1&ocid=msedgntp&cvid=53b4b3fd010f4422b635beaa4946f270