Brexit discussion thread III

An Ciarraioch

More parliamentary endeavours to prevent a "no deal Brexit", with some Tories warming to joining EFTA:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/support-for-cross-party-plans-take-no-deal-brexit-off-table

Jim2007

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More parliamentary endeavours to prevent a "no deal Brexit", with some Tories warming to joining EFTA:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/support-for-cross-party-plans-take-no-deal-brexit-off-table

Applying for membership is one thing, being accepted is another... neither Norway nor Switzerland want a dominant trouble maker joining the group. I expect to see a referendum in Switzerland over it. Hell, I’ll start the process myself in no one else does :-)

Jim2007

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The UK Independent claims May could offer effective freedom of movement, with an "emergency brake" included as a face-saving measure:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-talks-latest-eu-immigration-free-movement-offer-a8326101.html#commentsDiv

Yes that is the agreement we have here in Switzerland with the EU, but so far every time someone tries to apply the brake it has been found to be defective :-)

Econ_

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

More parliamentary endeavours to prevent a "no deal Brexit", with some Tories warming to joining EFTA:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/28/support-for-cross-party-plans-take-no-deal-brexit-off-table

If that amendment gets through parliament it will effectively end the question of the Irish border.

The only way to avoid a no deal scenario is to agree a withdrawal treaty with the EU - and the only way to agree a withdrawal treaty is to sign up to a legally operative solution to guarantee no hard border.

embraer170

Having a large third country pay into the EU budget but have absolutely no formal say in the EU decision and policy making process is not a bad position for the remaining Member States. You don't even have a say on the overall EU budget (and increases on contributions).

The contribution will not enjoy the UK rebate either.

Good luck with the 300 million for the NHS.

Capt'n Midnight

Jim2007 wrote: »

Applying for membership is one thing, being accepted is another... neither Norway nor Switzerland want a dominant trouble maker joining the group. I expect to see a referendum in Switzerland over it. Hell, I’ll start the process myself in no one else does :-)

the Swiss are upset because all new deals with them are off for the duration in case they set a precedent that the UK can use for Brexit.


As I keep saying the UK has a much larger population and economy, and are heading the opposite direction to the other members. Scotland would be a good fit due to a similar economy to Norway, raw materials, food, energy , food.

England with it's reliance on services and Jet Engines not so much.

Rain Ascending

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The UK Independent claims May could offer effective freedom of movement, with an "emergency brake" included as a face-saving measure:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-deal-talks-latest-eu-immigration-free-movement-offer-a8326101.html#commentsDiv

The Sunday Times has some interesting detail here: this is a proposal backed by Amber Rudd and has the objective of obtaining a better result for the UK in trade negotiations.

I draw two conclusions:
(a) This is not a cabinet-approved approach to the negotiations (no surprise there!).
(b) The ultimate objective of the proposal is to hold on to Single Market membership.

The latter conclusion comes from the observation that one of the key challenges (for the UK) for retaining Single Market membership is the "pillar"/pre-condition of Freedom of Movement (FoM). It seems Rudd is proposing something that sounds like FoM and so is likely to be aiming at staying in the Single Market. Otherwise, why link a FoM-like immigration policy with the trade negotiations? This proposal is certainly not needed on the table if all that the UK is looking for is a "good" free trade agreement.

Now the speculation: most leaks/briefings/quotes in the UK are directed at the internal negotiations within the UK and/or the Conservatives. My guess is that this set of leaks is a trial balloon to check to see if something like EEA/EFTA membership is acceptable domestically. Or else Rudd is trying to shore up her support from pro-Remain Tories, even as she comes under severe pressure over Windrush.

EdgeCase

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the Swiss are upset because all new deals with them are off for the duration in case they set a precedent that the UK can use for Brexit.


As I keep saying the UK has a much larger population and economy, and are heading the opposite direction to the other members. Scotland would be a good fit due to a similar economy to Norway, raw materials, food, energy , food.

England with it's reliance on services and Jet Engines not so much.

I'd say the main concern is that the UK would come in with the notion that it was now running EFTA and just ignore the other members' interests. It hasn't shown any ability to play ball in the EU, so why would it be any different in EFTA?

All they (the current Tories and Brexiteers*) see it as is a vehicle for accessing the EU market, not as any kind of expression of solidarity towards other members. You can forget any notion of them actually thinking they should be expected to see 'trade offs' or any kind of compromises or consensus building. They seem to no longer do that kind of thing.

*I am very deliberately avoiding personifying "the UK" as these policies are only being driven by a particular slice of, largely, English right wing politics. They're not reflective of the entire country.

Nody

Rain Ascending wrote: »

The Sunday Times has some interesting detail here: this is a proposal backed by Amber Rudd and has the objective of obtaining a better result for the UK in trade negotiations.

I draw two conclusions:
(a) This is not a cabinet-approved approach to the negotiations (no surprise there!).
(b) The ultimate objective of the proposal is to hold on to Single Market membership.

The latter conclusion comes from the observation that one of the key challenges (for the UK) for retaining Single Market membership is the "pillar"/pre-condition of Freedom of Movement (FoM). It seems Rudd is proposing something that sounds like FoM and so is likely to be aiming at staying in the Single Market. Otherwise, why link a FoM-like immigration policy with the trade negotiations? This proposal is certainly not needed on the table if all that the UK is looking for is a "good" free trade agreement.

Now the speculation: most leaks/briefings/quotes in the UK are directed at the internal negotiations within the UK and/or the Conservatives. My guess is that this set of leaks is a trial balloon to check to see if something like EEA/EFTA membership is acceptable domestically. Or else Rudd is trying to shore up her support from pro-Remain Tories, even as she comes under severe pressure over Windrush.

Don't see it flying to be honest because it's cherry picking at it's finest. Either freedom of movement is there or it is not; no "Oh well we can stop one of the freedoms if needed" clause will be allowed.

Water John

Rudd is gone.
She should now go to the fore of Tories staying in Europe but may not have the heart, to do so.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Rudd is gone.

Hmmm. Interesting to see who will replace her. She was a Remainer at heart.

Spanish Eyes

Theresa May was her predecessor or am I wrong?

LeinsterDub

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Theresa May was her predecessor or am I wrong?

Nope you're not wrong this is May's mess she's just letting someone else fall on their sword on her behalf

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hmmm. Interesting to see who will replace her. She was a Remainer at heart.

A couple of things to look out for, as you say who will replace her in cabinet as this is the second Remainer that has lost their job in the last six months. Secondly, will Theresa May face any backlash due to this. Amber Rudd has fallen on her sword as she just carried on the policies from Theresa May. We could see a new election before July.

You have to wonder what the fallout will be. Amber Rudd had to go. She lied repeatedly to cover for her job. But she did pass on targets to the PM. The targets were set before she took the job by the PM. I would not be surprised if this is what brings the government down. It's not the actual scandal here but the cover up. The Guardian has reported on this for more than 6 months and there has only been recognition in the past week or so. So one minister has gone and as the scandal spreads wings and deaths of people are reported due to their treatment, which I am sure is out there, Theresa May will resign as well. Good riddance to her in my opinion as she started the persecution of legal migrants that were easy targets to try and bring the immigration numbers down to below 100 000. Who set that target? David Cameron. We are seeing the crows coming home to roost for the Conservatives.

Spanish Eyes

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nope you're not wrong this is May's mess she's just letting someone else fall on their sword on her behalf

Thanks,

I thought as much when TM said she had full faith in her. The kiss of death.

Anyway Windrush was an issue alright and such issues ain't over yet. Wonder who will be the next one to take over this benighted role in UK?

They seem clueless to me in many respects, but I better shut up now!

Water John

The hostile immigration policy is from May's time on the job. Rudd caught either not knowing or denying there were migrant targets.
Crime most likely, misleading Parliament.
Always, one of the few Tories I would like.

Enzokk

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Thanks,

I thought as much when TM said she had full faith in her. The kiss of death.

Anyway Windrush was an issue alright and such issues ain't over yet. Wonder who will be the next one to take over this benighted role in UK?

They seem clueless to me in many respects, but I better shut up now!

Its a loaded gun to the temple, the Home Secretary job. You are taking over a role from someone who got sacked for following the policies of your own employer, the PM. You cannot change anything because that would be admitting the policies were a mistake by the person who implemented them. So you will just have to continue doing the job as before, which we see now is a mess. You also cannot blame any problems on your predecessors, which has been a mainstay of politicians for ages as you would be blaming...the PM.

An Ciarraioch

Gove appears to be the favourite to replace her, according to the Guardian and the latest odds, but it also mentions Politico Europe tipping Savid Javid, who would be another strong Remainer.

EdgeCase

Just as long as May doesn't appoint JRM as some miscalculated attempt to appease the Brexiteers. She's made some very odd political choices.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

The hostile immigration policy is from May's time on the job. Rudd caught either not knowing or denying there were migrant targets.
Crime most likely, misleading Parliament.
Always, one of the few Tories I would like.

She did know about the targets. She sent a letter to the PM saying the targets were going to be tough to achieve, but it can be done. She resigned for lying about it. Theresa May should be next to fall.

Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target

The private letter from Amber Rudd to Downing Street in which she sets an “ambitious but deliverable” target for an increase in the enforced deportation of immigrants has been published by the Guardian in full for the first time.

The letter, signed by the home secretary in January last year, states that she is refocusing work within her department to achieve the “aim of increasing the number of enforced removals by more than 10% over the next few years”.

Water John

Yes you can do a volte face, on your predecessor. Here Varadkar had no problem doing it. You simply show it's not working. Different though, if who you replace moves up to PM.

Spanish Eyes

Wasn't Theresa May a previous incumbent in that role? And probably knew all about Windrush, and much more too I suspect.

Jeez who would want to be a politician when the knives are poised at your back at every turn. But never for the morons like JRMogg and that hairy moron that is Boris Johnson. Reluctant to say BJ for obvious reasons, but just said it so there!

Water John

Policy in the UK can change from time to time. Like the fact that, it doesn't have a written Constitution but a whole rigmarole of historical precedents. The Windrush gen had no formal citizenship docs. So when you change policy and harden it, on employers, NHS and landlords, they feel a cold wind.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

She did know about the targets. She sent a letter to the PM saying the targets were going to be tough to achieve, but it can be done. She resigned for lying about it. Theresa May should be next to fall.

Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target

"Enforced removals"......they're an absolute shower, aren't they?

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

To put that in context :


During the whole of 2017, just over half of UK exports went to either Ireland or the Netherlands.

Well, in fairness, if the UK imposes a70% tariff on Irish beef they'll have to impose the same tariff on every country in the world with whom they do not have a trade deal. Which, on day 1 after Brexit, will be every country in the world.

In that scenario, protecting British exports of beef won't be an issue. They'll need every kilo of beef they slaughter for their own domestic market.

Rjd2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Gove appears to be the favourite to replace her, according to the Guardian and the latest odds, but it also mentions Politico Europe tipping Savid Javid, who would be another strong Remainer.

Won't be Gove as he and May don't really have much in common and May will want a remainer to replace Rudd or at least if a Brexiter a female and someone loyal to her. Maybe James Brokenshire or Karen Bradley either? Two remainers and both pretty loyal to May.

Javid should get it though.

EdgeCase wrote: »

Just as long as May doesn't appoint JRM as some miscalculated attempt to appease the Brexiteers. She's made some very odd political choices.

People need to stop talking about Mogg when it comes to top jobs like this, he has no experience in cabinet and has been clear in not been keen whatsoever to leave the backbenches. He is having a superb time, raising his profile and has the freedom to say what he wants where he is. He also is a millionaire many times over so not as if struggling either.

Peregrinus

May faces two separate decisions here. First, who is to be Home Secretary? Second, who is to be appointed to Cabinet, and should care be taken to replace Remainer Rudd with another Remainer, so as to preserve the Remain/Leave balance?

The two questions don't have to have the same answer, since an existing Cabinet member can be moved into the Home Office, and a new appointee put into the position thus vacated.

The constraints are: First a credible Home Secretary needs substantial ministerial experience. The more so in the present circumstances since they are taking on a Department at the centre of a political crisis. So it has to be somebody of acknowledged experience and competence. Secondly, shifting the Leave/Remain balance by putting another Leaver in Cabinet would send a hostile signal to Tory Remainers just at a time when the Remainish tendency in the Tory party is building up steam. May would be unwise to do that. Thirdly, if she is lucky, May might have a chance to weaken the Remainer side by seducing away one of its more weighty members with honeyed words, blandishments and a seat at the Cabinet table. I don't have anyone in mind, but May will probably at least consider whether she has the opportunity to do that.

Rjd2

Peregrinus wrote: »

May faces two separate decisions here. First, who is to be Home Secretary? Second, who is to be appointed to Cabinet, and should care be taken to replace Remainer Rudd with another Remainer, so as to preserve the Remain/Leave balance?

The two questions don't have to have the same answer, since an existing Cabinet member can be moved into the Home Office, and a new appointee put into the position thus vacated.

The constraints are: First a credible Home Secretary needs substantial ministerial experience. The more so in the present circumstances since they are taking on a Department at the centre of a political crisis. So it has to be somebody of acknowledged experience and competence. Secondly, shifting the Leave/Remain balance by putting another Leaver in Cabinet would send a hostile signal to Tory Remainers just at a time when the Remainish tendency in the Tory party is building up steam. May would be unwise to do that. Thirdly, if she is lucky, May might have a chance to weaken the Remainer side by seducing away one of its more weighty members with honeyed words, blandishments and a seat at the Cabinet table. I don't have anyone in mind, but May will probably at least consider whether she has the opportunity to do that.

Guardian were speculating about Morgan earlier, female also and would not turn the job down. However her and May don't get on for reasons not just Brexit and it would be a leftfield type of play and well Theresa isn't exactly known for that.

Javid is the obvious choice, remainer but a very soft one and was very eloquent this weekend about Windrush. Without sounding cynical they also need to get some diversity into the main roles. Obviously the best person for the job etc, but not as if they are many more qualified white people anyhow:pac:

Bradley I suspect is standing outside May's window screaming for the job, her current role? Would not wish that on my worst enemy:p

murphaph

I'm sure the EU parliament (especially) is looking on in horror at the whole Windrush scandal. I mean this body, more than any other, represents the citizens of Europe. It will demand pretty cast iron guarantees from the UK about anything concerning citizens' rights post Brexit, considering how appallingly the UK is treating its very own (but immigrant) citizens right now.

flatty

Enzokk wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

The hostile immigration policy is from May's time on the job. Rudd caught either not knowing or denying there were migrant targets.
Crime most likely, misleading Parliament.
Always, one of the few Tories I would like.

She did know about the targets. She sent a letter to the PM saying the targets were going to be tough to achieve, but it can be done. She resigned for lying about it. Theresa May should be next to fall.

Amber Rudd letter to PM reveals 'ambitious but deliverable' removals target

The private letter from Amber Rudd to Downing Street in which she sets an “ambitious but deliverable” target for an increase in the enforced deportation of immigrants has been published by the Guardian in full for the first time.

The letter, signed by the home secretary in January last year, states that she is refocusing work within her department to achieve the “aim of increasing the number of enforced removals by more than 10% over the next few years”.

In her defence, I suspect she has so many letters thrust under her nose to sign that it may well have passed relatively unheeded. Lord knows I've signed letters in the past week I've only skimmed, and couldn't tell you the detail.
She was relatively new in the job, and it must have been overwhelming. Someone powerful wanted her gone. I doubt she lied very much. Just testified under pressure, without having had the time to fully brief herself. The letter was a teresa may classic of the two adjective statement. "ambitious and deliverable," "stable and strong" "deep and meaningful"
Rudd had no time to adjust the course of the home office, firmly set by her predecessor, and the genuine villain of the piece who still evades censure.
There was a decent article in The Times on Saturday by Matthew Parris about it all. His main thrust was that teresa may merely locked her door, responded to noone, and hired to thugs to dictate and enforce policy, and that rudd, nor any other home secretary, can drive a ship whilst facing the audience.

FrancieBrady

Barnier's speech in Co. Louth today is to be broadcast 'live' on RTE.

Is he expected to make a major pronouncement?

Beechwoodspark

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Barnier's speech in Co. Louth today is to be broadcast 'live' on RTE.

Is he expected to make a major pronouncement?

It’s being touted as yet another reprimand to the UK

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Barnier's speech in Co. Louth today is to be broadcast 'live' on RTE.

Is he expected to make a major pronouncement?

10:45 RTE News Extra isn't it?

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

10:45 RTE News Extra isn't it?

I think that is what they said.

mayo.mick

Livestream here;

https://www.dfa.ie/brexit/livestream/

Enzokk

flatty wrote: »

In her defence, I suspect she has so many letters thrust under her nose to sign that it may well have passed relatively unheeded. Lord knows I've signed letters in the past week I've only skimmed, and couldn't tell you the detail.
She was relatively new in the job, and it must have been overwhelming. Someone powerful wanted her gone. I doubt she lied very much. Just testified under pressure, without having had the time to fully brief herself. The letter was a teresa may classic of the two adjective statement. "ambitious and deliverable," "stable and strong" "deep and meaningful"
Rudd had no time to adjust the course of the home office, firmly set by her predecessor, and the genuine villain of the piece who still evades censure.
There was a decent article in The Times on Saturday by Matthew Parris about it all. His main thrust was that teresa may merely locked her door, responded to noone, and hired to thugs to dictate and enforce policy, and that rudd, nor any other home secretary, can drive a ship whilst facing the audience.

Have you ever signed letters which you haven't read but refers to work you have done in the first person?

"Everything I have outlined above is aimed not just at radically reshaping refocusing..."

That is from the letter. It talks of work she has done and recommendations she makes to the PM. I know you may just be playing devil's advocate here, but there is zero defense for her at all. This wasn't an update from her office, this was a personal letter from her to the PM. If we are to believe that she didn't know about targets then we can follow that thread and make a conclusion that she didn't actually do any work that is mentioned in the letter. That means someone else is doing work and she is taking claim for that.

In any case, this is a mess for the UK as they need a scandal right now like a hole in the head. A scandal that will involve the PM as well, with local elections on Thursday, could mean a really bad week for the government.

Danzy

Isn't it messed up that she resigns for knowing about the targets but denying them.

The targets and zero tolerance should be explicit and open Govt. policy.

Having to deny doing the right thing is bizarre.

Zubeneschamali

Danzy wrote: »

The targets and zero tolerance should be explicit and open Govt. policy.

They should certainly have been in the Tory manifesto - then Corbyn would be negotiating Single Market membership right now.

Hurrache

mayo.mick wrote: »

Livestream here;

https://www.dfa.ie/brexit/livestream/

Have it on in the background, Shane Ross was awful for his 3 minutes of speaking time.

Enzokk

Danzy wrote: »

Isn't it messed up that she resigns for knowing about the targets but denying them.

The targets and zero tolerance should be explicit and open Govt. policy.

Having to deny doing the right thing is bizarre.

Setting the targets have meant that the Home Office have started policies where they made it difficult for their own citizens to prove they have a right to stay in their own country, due to shoddy documentation from the UK government. Seems that the policy was to remove people first before asking questions, to meet those targets.

There has been mud thrown at the situation by talking about legal and illegal immigrants. The fact remains the policies were set up to make it difficult for immigrants to prove that they are legal. When this situation came up it seems the thought process is to think of the immigrants as illegal first and to treat them that way. No NHS treatment, no benefits (even if they have been paying tax all their working lives) and no legal aid either.

Amber Rudd didn't fight these policies, she wanted to get better at them. That is the reason she should have gone. She has gone now because she is a liar. What does this mean for the future? I would say EU immigrants in the UK needs to get copies of copies of documents, because if the UK can treat their own citizens like dirt on the bottom if their shoes, what will they do to other countries citizens?

Danzy

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They should certainly have been in the Tory manifesto - then Corbyn would be negotiating Single Market membership right now.

A strict approach to illegal migration is what the public want. A Libertarian approach might be popular left activists or free market fanatics but not among the electorate and most stridently among the Working Class.

flatty

Enzokk wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

In her defence, I suspect she has so many letters thrust under her nose to sign that it may well have passed relatively unheeded. Lord knows I've signed letters in the past week I've only skimmed, and couldn't tell you the detail.
She was relatively new in the job, and it must have been overwhelming. Someone powerful wanted her gone. I doubt she lied very much. Just testified under pressure, without having had the time to fully brief herself. The letter was a teresa may classic of the two adjective statement. "ambitious and deliverable," "stable and strong" "deep and meaningful"
Rudd had no time to adjust the course of the home office, firmly set by her predecessor, and the genuine villain of the piece who still evades censure.
There was a decent article in The Times on Saturday by Matthew Parris about it all. His main thrust was that teresa may merely locked her door, responded to noone, and hired to thugs to dictate and enforce policy, and that rudd, nor any other home secretary, can drive a ship whilst facing the audience.

Have you ever signed letters which you haven't read but refers to work you have done in the first person?

"Everything I have outlined above is aimed not just at radically reshaping refocusing..."

That is from the letter. It talks of work she has done and recommendations she makes to the PM. I know you may just be playing devil's advocate here, but there is zero defense for her at all. This wasn't an update from her office, this was a personal letter from her to the PM. If we are to believe that she didn't know about targets then we can follow that thread and make a conclusion that she didn't actually do any work that is mentioned in the letter. That means someone else is doing work and she is taking claim for that.

In any case, this is a mess for the UK as they need a scandal right now like a hole in the head. A scandal that will involve the PM as well, with local elections on Thursday, could mean a really bad week for the government.

Teresa may had those two hired goons running the home office. Any minister worth their salt, in fact, anyone who moves into any senior management role, will rely on those experienced and already there. The text of that letter suggests that it was prompted. It is a vague generic reply, full of teresa mayisms, which is exactly something someone might send to create a bit of breathing space whilst one tries to get to grips with a huge role. There was no way, absolutely none, that she could remain as home Secretary whilst throwing all of the prime ministers previously enforced dictats into the bin in the first few months, nor should she have. Even if I radically disagreed (which I do) with the policies, the options are, send a vague generic letter whilst getting to grips with the leviathan, and softly softly changing from within, or, go nuclear and get fired for someone who will charge on full steam ahead.
Amber Rudd has been shafted here. People are full of bile and fingerpointing, without even trying to understand.
Rudd may have been a gung-ho deporter, we will never know.

Hurrache

Barnier is starting his keynote speech now followed by Q&A via Twitter I think.

Zubeneschamali

Danzy wrote: »

A strict approach to illegal migration is what the public want.

The Windrush folks are completely legal, that is why this is, y'know, a scandal.

ambro25

Danzy wrote: »

Isn't it messed up that she resigns for knowing about the targets but denying them.

Isn’t it more messed up, that she denied the targets when she knew about them, and they were long public anyway?

Should we just continue to let politicians getting away with bare-faced lying? What is more, to Parliamentary Committees no less?

What do you think?

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Isn’t it more messed up, that she denied the targets when she knew about them, and they were long public anyway?

Should we just continue to let politicians getting away with bare-faced lying? What is more, to Parliamentary Committees no less?

What do you think?

Unfortunately, this is one hangover of the referendum. When faced with something like this, there is nothing to stop politicians simply denying it. Of course Politicians lied before but I don't think they've ever been quite so brazen about it.

An Ciarraioch

Very disappointing and hypocritical attitude from the DUP and UUP - they refuse the invites to put their case to Barnier, yet they'll then promptly criticise Dublin for not engaging with unionism!

ancapailldorcha

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Very disappointing and hypocritical attitude from the DUP and UUP - they refuse the invites to put their case to Barnier, yet they'll then promptly criticise Dublin for not engaging with unionism!

All the time the clock is continuing to tick. They still don't understand that there is no Dublin, there is just the EU27 represented by Mr. Barnier.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All the time the clock is continuing to tick. They still don't understand that there is no Dublin, there is just the EU27 represented by Mr. Barnier.

It suits the Tories and the DUP to oscillate between blaming the EU and blaming Ireland for lack of progress. The DUP's electorate is very different from the Tory electorate. Sometimes it suits the likes of Mogg to threaten Ireland, other times it suits May to blame the EU. It very much suits the DUP to single Ireland out. And sometimes they unite in allocating blame because it suits both parties.

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Very disappointing and hypocritical attitude from the DUP and UUP - they refuse the invites to put their case to Barnier, yet they'll then promptly criticise Dublin for not engaging with unionism!

They are a joke as political parties. They basically only want to talk to those who agree with them. Otherwise, they are quite happy to sit in a room and complain everyone is oit to get them and it so unfair.

DUP leader Arlene Foster said Mr Barnier did not understand unionist culture.

She told the BBC: “He’s hearing a very strong message from the Republic of Ireland’s government, he’s hearing it from Sinn Féin.

“We have tried to get him to understand the unionist position for the people of Northern Ireland, but he hasn’t really responded to that and I’m disappointed about that.

“I am also disappointed that he will hear anti-Brexit voices tomorrow, he won’t hear any pro-Brexit voices tomorrow because he is being taken around by Sinn Fein MPs.”

In response, Mr Barnier said: “My door is open.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/barnier-calls-for-rapid-agreement-on-outstanding-brexit-issues-1.3478916?mode=amp