Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Indeed.

 

And I’ve posted my opinion on your ‘mental swerve’.

 

Chill, you’ll get half your answer later today.

 

And so too will I.

 

Enjoy.

Chilled as can be. Really. I don't mind a bit of banter and can give and take without running off crying to others. It is all very interesting regardless of who you side with. That's me signing off for the day,.

Well not long to wait now to see which way all this is going.  Another thought is that if May get's her deal through does she still need an extension as she is woefully unprepared to get all the boxes ticked before the end of the month?

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

Could just as easily be a quote from Boris Johnson or Nigel Farage.

Could have easily been a quote from my neighbour Charlie Snoggins, but it wasn't, it was a quote from JCJ.

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

In another topic  @nauseus called May's deal 'crap' and when I asked him "So enlighten me; what specifics in her plan do you disagree with, and with what would you replace them?" he made a pathetic excuse for dodging the question.

 

Will you now answer it?

Rather than get personal, how about trying this for starters (There's lots more in the same vein, just a Google away):

Actually, May's deal would be worse than no Brexit. A clean break is the cleanest solution

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/21/actually-mays-deal-would-worse-no-brexit-clean-break-cleanest/

32 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I don't think a lot of British people know what they want but as sure as eggs is eggs they ain't going to get it with this Brexit.

And a lot DO know what they want. But I agree they ain't going to get it - unfortunately.

Edited March 12, 20197 yr by Krataiboy

10 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Yes lets wait and see what the Remainer has done. Will it be good enough to get her crappy deal through!

 

If it is and the UK leave the EU on tghen29th March then there will be a lot of TV posters crying in their breakfasts.????

 

Either way for me the UK and the EU friendship has hit rock bottom and will be difficult to repair. I know of friends who won't buy anything from the EU countries now. Wine from Chile instead of France and Germany. They are not anti European countries, just anti EU. Seeing the way the EU have demonised, insulted and ridiculed the people of the UK, will not be forgotten for a long time.

 

Either way TM should go.

 

demonised, insulted and ridiculed the people of the UK "?  You are even not able to decide where you want the border with the EU: in the Irish sea, or between N and S Ireland or... 25 miles SW of Cork or ?  Same between Gibraltar and Spain.

Pity we EU citizens do not have the right to vote to KICK one out... Charles de Gaulle was right: do NOT let the UK into the EU

"Here is a turd."

"I don't want the turd."

"You <deleted> traitor. I went to a lot of trouble to get you the turd. Take it."

"I will not."

[later]

"I got you something."

"Is it a turd?"

"Yes, but I also have a piece of paper with the words 'THIS IS NOT A TURD' written on it.

8 minutes ago, puipuitom said:

demonised, insulted and ridiculed the people of the UK "?  You are even not able to decide where you want the border with the EU: in the Irish sea, or between N and S Ireland or... 25 miles SW of Cork or ?  Same between Gibraltar and Spain.

Pity we EU citizens do not have the right to vote to KICK one out... Charles de Gaulle was right: do NOT let the UK into the EU

And yet the UK has been a key player in the EU who have said that Britain leaving will be a bad thing for everyone, EU and Britain alike.  Don't put all Brits in the same basket over Brexit.

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Are you talking about the so-called Agreement, or it's skirt-wearing architect?

I'm never discourteous to women; ask DD. 

2 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Here if you forgot already — and I’m saying it with this face: ????????

This one's a Mogg → ????

1 hour ago, puipuitom said:

demonised, insulted and ridiculed the people of the UK "?  You are even not able to decide where you want the border with the EU: in the Irish sea, or between N and S Ireland or... 25 miles SW of Cork or ?  Same between Gibraltar and Spain.

Pity we EU citizens do not have the right to vote to KICK one out... Charles de Gaulle was right: do NOT let the UK into the EU

He was right, he was. 

56 minutes ago, evadgib said:

This one's a Mogg → ????

and here's his latest Moggcast:

 

From the Beeb - looks like lots of votes to come:

 

1. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox advises the changes reduce the chances of the UK being held indefinitely in the "backstop".
2. But he says the legal risk "remains unchanged" that the UK would have no legal means of exiting it without EU agreement.

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

and here's his latest Moggcast:

 

you should post the clip from TV last night when he wouldnt answer questions on his £7million earnings from his now based in dublin business interests,would of been £6 million but the pound crashing made it up to seven,and you leave dreamers think he is bothered about soveringty and a few polish tattie pickers,wake up

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

From the Beeb - looks like lots of votes to come:

 

1. Attorney General Geoffrey Cox advises the changes reduce the chances of the UK being held indefinitely in the "backstop".
2. But he says the legal risk "remains unchanged" that the UK would have no legal means of exiting it without EU agreement.

 

GBP fell on the news, which means the chances of May's deal going through are significantly reduced.

 

So we're back to "no deal" being kicked out and an extension to Article 50. It has been reported that the DUP and ERG are looking for a ladder to climb down, I'm not convinced this is it. 

 

Watch parliament take control if May's deal fails.

 

4 minutes ago, bomber said:

you should post the clip from TV last night when he wouldnt answer questions on his £7million earnings from his now based in dublin business interests,would of been £6 million but the pound crashing made it up to seven,and you leave dreamers think he is bothered about soveringty and a few polish tattie pickers,wake up

Jacob's company is positioning itself to profit from Brexit, so he's talking up his own book.

 

 

<deleted post>

Edited March 12, 20197 yr by evadgib

So Cox has said the backstop is still legally binding 

 

So, if there is a Meaningful Vote later today, it’ll now certainly fail and this is the end of the Withdrawal Agreement as drafted.

 

 

 

Other options then become more likely:

- No Deal
- Delay + General Election
- Delay + People's Vote
- Rescind Article 50
 

11 minutes ago, tebee said:

So Cox has said the backstop is still legally binding 

Really?

 

Edited March 12, 20197 yr by evadgib

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

He said the exact opposite:

 

Brexit: Legal risk of backstop remains 'unchanged' says Geoffrey Cox

The risk of the UK being tied to EU rules after Brexit "remains unchanged" despite the latest changes to the PM's deal, the attorney general has said.

Geoffrey Cox said there remained no "internationally lawful means" of leaving the Irish backstop without the EU's agreement

His updated legal advice is seen as vital to determining whether Tory Brexiteers and the DUP back the deal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47533666

Just now, evadgib said:

He said the exact opposite from what I've seen elsewhere.

HTH

 

Essentially what he's said is that it is an improvement, there is a legally binding challenge to the backstop in the situation where the EU is acting in "bad faith", but that is not the same as a unilateral right to rescind the backstop. You could be remaining in the backstop because the negotiations become intractable ... with no bad faith involved. So technically it is not what was asked for. 

 

The question is now whether the DUP/ERG can live with that or want to scupper it. If I were them, I'd take the deal, because the risk they are taking is an extended Article 50 followed by a referendum, and a remain outcome. What's quite interesting about this saga is the possibility that those that are the most pro-Brexit by their actions scupper it forever.

 

 

Is it just me or is there an air of tolerance on the forum today.  There seems to be less vitriol than usual.  Rather nice actually.

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

He said the exact opposite:

 

No the back stop itself rather than TM changes, remains legally binding - we are unable to unilaterally revoke ir 

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Is it just me or is there an air of tolerance on the forum today.  There seems to be less vitriol than usual.  Rather nice actually.

Yes there does seem to be  - it's a pleasant change 

Cox is speaking to the house at 12.30.  Maybe things will be clearer then

3 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

Essentially what he's said is that it is an improvement, there is a legally binding challenge to the backstop in the situation where the EU is acting in "bad faith", but that is not the same as a unilateral right to rescind the backstop. You could be remaining in the backstop because the negotiations become intractable ... with no bad faith involved. So technically it is not what was asked for. 

 

The question is now whether the DUP/ERG can live with that or want to scupper it. If I were them, I'd take the deal, because the risk they are taking is an extended Article 50 followed by a referendum, and a remain outcome. What's quite interesting about this saga is the possibility that those that are the most pro-Brexit by their actions scupper it forever.

 

 

If it's an improvement why does Cox judge that that the risk of the UK being tied to Brexit remains unchanged?

1 minute ago, dunroaming said:

Is it just me or is there an air of tolerance on the forum today.  There seems to be less vitriol than usual.  Rather nice actually.

 

I think we are all sick of it, to be honest. 

 

I hate Brexit, I think it is a mistake. But if I look at May's deal, the original one, the backstop issue strikes me as a non-issue ... even if staying in it forever is a legal possibility, in my view it is a practical impossibility. Neither party would want to be stuck in it.  

 

 

This is from the New York Times:

Mr. Cox said the concessions from the bloc did “reduce the risk” of Britain being trapped indefinitely in the so-called Irish backstop — an insurance policy against a hard border in Ireland, and a main issue for opponents of Mrs. May’s deal.

But Mr. Cox said that the understanding did not alter the two parties’ rights and obligations. Even under the new terms, Britain would have “no internationally lawful means of exiting the protocol’s arrangements, save by agreement,” he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/world/europe/uk-brexit-vote.html

To which I would like to append my learned clarification: Huh?

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If it's an improvement why does Cox judge that that the risk of the UK being tied to Brexit remains unchanged?

Because you have a legally binding right to challenge the EU for acting in bad faith, unlike before. You can extract yourself from it unilaterally if bad faith on the part of the EU is shown. But that doesn't cover negotiations getting tied up for legitimate reasons. You can't just decide to walk away unilaterally.

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

 

I think we are all sick of it, to be honest. 

 

I hate Brexit, I think it is a mistake. But if I look at May's deal, the original one, the backstop issue strikes me as a non-issue ... even if staying in it forever is a legal possibility, in my view it is a practical impossibility. Neither party would want to be stuck in it.  

 

 

 

 

I agree with you about the back stop.

 

Equally,, I have believed that neither party wants to trade on poor terms.