UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Which as we all know would have allowed Johnson to set the date after October 31st.

Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

The only problem there is the FTPA, he will have to get 2/3 agreement.

The FTPA needs scrapping IMHO.

True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Alternatively, no. Labour couldn't control the date.

If Boris had asked for a technical extension to Brexit I'd have looked forward to the public verdict and the delivery of the outcome after a general election.

You know this though I'm surprised you even made the point.

Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Even if Labour could control the date, they would not have wanted an election yet. I'd have thought that was obvious. He knows he would have to come clean about Brexit, and he is not fit to win that argument. The man is very confused and unable to make a decision.

Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Alternatively, we could have had an election before then, giving the public their verdict on Brexit, couldn't they? Corbyn knows he would lose, which is why he wouldn't call one.

---------- Post added at 19:20 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------



True, but it's only 50/50 to change the law.

Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Ah, so you were speculating! Thanks for confirming.

Ridiculous argument.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Ridiculous argument.

You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Repealing the FTPA would require only a simple majority in the Commons, but the bill would be amendable at various stages of its passage through Parliament. The way Parliament is right now, any piece of primary legislation is at risk of a rider clause being inserted, with the intention of sabotaging Brexit in some way. So repealing the FTPA is going to have to wait until after an election, when Boris hopefully has a comfortable working majority. If he does deliver Brexit next month, that should be achievable.

Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.

[1andrew1]

Looks like the reality of border checks has finally caught up with BoJo.

EU officials also described a lunch in Luxembourg on Monday between Mr Johnson, Michel Barnier, and Mr Juncker as the moment the “penny dropped” for the prime minister on the complexities involved in replacing the Irish backstop. Mr Johnson was told by his counterparts that the UK’s proposals on allowing Northern Ireland to stick to common EU rules on food and livestock was not a sufficient replacement for the Irish backstop as it would still require customs checks on other types of goods.
“It was clear that Boris was on a learning curve,” said an EU official. Another described Mr Johnson as “slumping” into his seat over the course of dinner as the reality of the tight negotiating schedule dawned.

https://www.ft.com/content/93ff1a64-...b-77216ebe1f17

Downing Street has described as “nonsense” a report in the Financial Times that Johnson turned to his chief negotiator, David Frost, and the Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and said: “So you’re telling me the SPS plan doesn’t solve the customs problem?”
But senior EU sources confirmed that Johnson had expressed surprise during the lunch at the complexity of the situation, and that it appeared to have been a “bit of a reality check to hear it from EU officials”.
Sources said it was not the case that Johnson had failed to understand the role of the shared customs territory in the Irish backstop but that it was the scale of checks that would still be necessary without such an arrangement that appeared to hit home.
A second EU diplomat confirmed: “When the commission explained the technical challenges and enduring need for customs checks under the UK proposals, Johnson expressed surprise in the direction of his advisers.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-checks-brexit

[Mr K]

The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The liar has been lied to. Wonder how it feels?

You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You made a very clear statement in ignorance of a material fact.

Looking at alternative scenarios is not ignorance, jfman. You do it all the time, don't you?

Pot, kettle, black...

Originally Posted by pip08456

Agreed Chris, why it was ever passed into law is beyond me.

The Liberal Democrats were worried that at an opportune moment the Tories would call a snap election, especially before their concessions to the Liberals were met.

I also think it's not all bad. In way it's doing what it was meant to do which is to stop the Government calling an election to suit them politically. This particular case is very weird since the Government can't govern and Parliament is keeping a zombie Government in place, and passing laws, which obviously isn't the intent though.

I am not sure if there is a way to avoid this situation but at the same time stop giving total discretion to the Government to call an election whenever they like.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

You have to realise Mr K that most politicians are liars even if sometimes its a white lie.

Sceaming Lord David Sutch - Monster Raving Loony Party never lied, he said he was nuts and he was. He seems quite sane now, compared to today's leaders, so maybe he did lie?

So one side of the negotiations is issuing briefings suggesting that the other side is ill-prepared. I mean obviously we should just take that at face value and uncritically. What possible reason could they have for making their opponents’ position look shaky while at the same time portraying themselves as thoroughly on top of everything.