Re: Brexit
 

Niall Paterson Retweeted

David Blevins
‏
Verified account

@skydavidblevins
6m
6 minutes ago


More
DUP sources: “The party cannot support the Prime Minister’s deal in tonight’s vote.” #Brexit

Re: Brexit
 

Wonder if that will be a vote against or just an abstain?

Re: Brexit
 

If the EU is supposedly so eager to have a deal that removes the backstop, why isn't there a specific end date, instead of an open ended one? The UK has already shown "good faith" that we are trying to come up with an acceptable arrangement.


Is there anywhere else in the world, outside of any trade agreement and/or security issues, where one country demands that another sovereign state obey certain conditions in connection with it's border?

Re: Brexit
 

Both parties have shown good faith so far, the question of good faith comes in the trade deal negotiations. But a backstop obviously ceases to be a backstop when it is time-limited.
The island of Ireland may well have unique arrangements in place, but security is a key issue driving this.

Re: Brexit
 

Most unlikely but you have to remember this is Ireland. Remember that British citizens can live freely in Ireland and Irish citizens can do the same in the UK which includes being able to vote.

Re: Brexit
 

The whole thing is a nonsense, to my mind. If the EU meant what they said about neither side wanting the backstop, and if introduced it would be for the minimum time possible, they should jolly well have entered into a legal agreement to confirm that. The fact that they won't do this speaks for itself. The EU is conducting these negotiations in bad faith.

I know people are terrified at the prospect, but we really need to leave without a deal. Even just saying that this is the road we are now on will shower the EU refuseniks with cold water and they would at last wake up to the reality of their intransigence.

The EU will charge us for any extension of the Brexit date, and without a concrete plan in mind, they may well not agree it anyway as that would not solve anything.

Given that the EU have not come up with any legal assurances that clarify the UK's right to time-limit the backstop, MPs will vote down the deal tonight.

So unless we go for the 'no deal' option, there is nowhere else to go. All other options would be unacceptable to the electorate as this would not involve leaving the EU.

Interestingly, Jacob Rees Mogg believes there is a way of maintaining the status quo while a new trade deal with the EU is negotiated.

On 10 May, Jacob Rees Mogg stated:

"If you are in a negotiation for a free trade agreement, you can maintain your existing standards for ten years under WTO rules. So we have ten years from the point at which we leave the European Union to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU which would mean we can carry on with our zero tariffs."

If he is right on this, leaving without a deal would be far better than the withdrawal agreement. Maybe that is what we should be getting a legal opinion on. We all know the score on the backstop, so no legal confirmation needed on the blindingly obvious.

Re: Brexit
 

DUP not backing revised deal


I wonder if not backing = abstention or actively voting against

Re: Brexit
 

It isn't a real backstop if it's time limited though. The point of it is to have something in place in case all else fails.

Re: Brexit
 

Surprisingly - House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, selects no amendments to tonights Meaningful votes and there were a few as per:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47539221

Re: Brexit
 

Well, if it's forever, it is unacceptable.

The backstop could easily be time-limited to provide the opportunity for negotiations to be exhausted. Parliament would never agree to the potential for a permanent backstop from which we could never extracate ourselves. Why would anyone think that would be acceptable?

All the EU had to do was to provide that the backstop was an integral part of the withdrawal agreement and that when the agreement came to an end with a new trade deal, or alternatively by six months' notice of termination by either side, all its provisions would end.

Why does the EU consider that to be so difficult? Because they are pulling a fast one, that's why. How gullible do they think we are?

Re: Brexit
 

The backstop is not time-limited. That is the central issue on this. The "good faith" that the EU has shown is to simply say no to any suggestion.

Re: Brexit
 

DUP confirmed as voting AGAINST deal.

Re: Brexit
 

Well they did also say you could have customs check in the Irish sea. The backstop applying to the whole UK was our idea.

---------- Post added at 14:46 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

The backstop would go in any agreement. It's unlikely that we would never reach an agreement with the biggest economic block in the world.

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:46 ----------

Personally if I was a Brexiter I would say go for it. Brexit is 100% locked, done, tonight if this bill passes. It's over and done with If they vote it down then yes maybe they'll get no deal or maybe there will be an extension and then who knows what'll happen.

Re: Brexit
 

A rather defeatest view, if I might say so. The EU want a deal, and we would be in a better position if we were negotiating it from outside the EU.

Re: Brexit
 

Why? We would be the ones without any trade deals and a pressing need to secure one. The EU literally signed a trade deal with Japan the other month, an economy bigger than ours.