Brexit discussion thread IV

Infini

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Dominic Grieve suggests it's a choice between Chequers and cancelling Brexit:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/if-we-can-t-work-together-on-a-deal-we-must-rethink-the-whole-idea-of-brexit-a3888121.html

My feeling from the sounds of this is that since the Brexitards have been shown to be irresponsible ignorant idiots who after 2 years have not come up with any coherent strategy for this and despite warnings of the damage that would be caused they dont care for anything but themselves and that those who are pragmatic and more sane are preparing and willing to face down these idiots and end this once and for all.

Brexit needs to be cancelled its in noones interest but idiots like Farage and the UK should it abort this needs serious reform itself. The lunatics shouldnt br allowed to run the asylum they only ruin things for everyone.

ancapailldorcha

EdgeCase wrote: »

I’d love to see Scottish independence but I also recognise it has huge risks and cost implications for the Scottish economy. If the UK goes into a tail spin after a hard Brexit, then maybe it might make sense but if a sane solution can be found that avoids that, it’s definitely needs to be found.

Hmm... I opposed Scottish independence in 2014 for economic reasons. I still would unless it was guaranteed EU membership if it left the UK. I really feel for the Scots being dragged out from the EU so if Brexit happens, they'll hopefully get to try again though they will need a much better economic argument.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I’m amazed that nobody in leadership in England seems to be able to put the UK before party petty politics and actually lead. As politicians go, the whole lot of them are an utter disappointment if that’s the quality of leadership the UK now has on offer. They’re a bunch of wimps who fear the tabloids.

Modern Conservatives have betrayed their main principles for Brexit. They have discarded pragmatism while putting party before country, something previous Conservative prime ministers would have balked at.

EdgeCase wrote: »

If they’re not careful Britain will become some kind of glorified Trump golf course.

A vassal state to Washington seems to be the primary goal of many Eurosceptics.

Imreoir2

There is a serious debate on if or how Brexit can be cancelled. Artical 50 has been triggered and the article itself does not have a clause that allowes it to be revoked (strangely enough no one thought a government might trigger Article 50 if they were not fully committed to seeing it through.)

Some say it can be revoked unilaterally by the UK, others say it can't be revoked at all. The EU position AFAIK is that it can be revoked, with agreement from the EU 27, but that there would have to be conditions attached to revoking it.

I read a paper on the subject that makes the plausible argument that allowing the UK to revoke Artical 50 without any consequences would create a moral hazzard whereby a government that has no intention of leaving the EU could trigger article 50 and use it to blackmail the institutions without having to actually leave. This in effect is what some remainers in the UK are trying to do, arguing for a new, as Trump would say "top level of special" deal for the UK within the EU in return for revoking Article 50.

briany

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The uk will starve themselves checking trucks for migrants. France etc would only be to happy to get them out of country and stand back from midnight doing nothing about migrants crossing into UK

I can already envision newspapers and sky news going ape****

Also let's not forget uk currently not checking imports from China which then leak into EU angering countries. For this reason alone there be checks on trucks from UK

Depending on the level of hostility towards migrants post-Brexit, would migrants even still be trying to get to the UK?

J Mysterio

"Another parliamentary private secretary has resigned from the government over the prime minister's Chequers plan. Scott Man, a PPS to the Treasury, announced his on Twitter this morning."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-brexiteer-say-chequers-plan-is-dead-as-theresa-may-gears-up-for-commons-showdown-a8449011.html#post-1134581897

Rumours also that may will accept the ERG's ammendments to her Chequers plan. Not that it would matter as it was fanciful garbage anyway.

Worst PM ever.

It is literally unbelievable that she rambles on, but its such a disaster that no one else wants to pick up the pieces. They need a GE, but there's no time for one in advance of Brexit. There is no time for a second referendum either really.

They left it all so late and had such ridiculous ideas that it seems nothing can really be achieved at this point. 1) Go crawling back to EU and attempt to have a50 rescinded or 2) crash out.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

"Another parliamentary private secretary has resigned from the government over the prime minister's Chequers plan. Scott Man, a PPS to the Treasury, announced his on Twitter this morning."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-brexiteer-say-chequers-plan-is-dead-as-theresa-may-gears-up-for-commons-showdown-a8449011.html#post-1134581897

Rumours also that may will accept the ERG's ammendments to her Chequers plan. Not that it would matter as it was fanciful garbage anyway.

Worst PM ever.

It is literally unbelievable that she rambles on, but its such a disaster that no one else wants to pick up the pieces. They need a GE, but there's no time for one in advance of Brexit. There is no time for a second referendum either really.

They left it all so late and had such ridiculous ideas that it seems nothing can really be achieved at this point. 1) Go crawling back to EU and attempt to have a50 rescinded or 2) crash out.

She has no backbone whatsoever - no credibility and no determination to stay on any course that she sets.

Yet for some reason she refuses to resign.

A weird lady.

FreudianSlippers

Certainly from the UK perspective, backing-out without a referendum would be political suicide at home and seen as extremely weak in the EU27 - I'm not saying they would, but the EU could impose requirements on the UK if they decided to stay.

lawred2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Certainly from the UK perspective, backing-out without a referendum would be political suicide at home and seen as extremely weak in the EU27 - I'm not saying they would, but the EU could impose requirements on the UK if they decided to stay.

would it?

Would represent more of a coming to senses moment I would have thought.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

The customs on the French side is a joint operation between UK and French authorities inspecting trucks.

Until next March, then all bets are off.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I really feel for the Scots being dragged out from the EU so if Brexit happens, they'll hopefully get to try again though they will need a much better economic argument.

Why? There was no economic argument for Brexit, why do the Scots need an economic argument to reject Brexit?

Simply note that there will be a cost and it is worth paying to escape the mad rule of Westminster.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

She has no backbone whatsoever - no credibility and no determination to stay on any course that she sets.

Yet for some reason she refuses to resign.

A weird lady.

Has anybody asked her to resign?

I think she is a dream to the likes of JRM and Boris. They can see how utterly weak she is, basically the only thing keeping her in power is the lack of alternative at the moment.

It can't be true that May is contemplating the amendments. I note that the spokesman said they would consider them, well that means nothing at all. Lots of people have considered my offer of a date, yet here I am typing on an internet forum!

But I can't take it seriously. Why would she walk herself up to the top of the Chequers hill, have ministers resign and face a backlash from within her own party, if she then waters it down. At this point it doesn't even matter, as its likely to be rejected by the EU anyway, but she needs to actually behave like a leader.

This is her position, get on board or get out should the the cry.

Even the idea that they are thinking about, rather than simply slapping JRM back down into his box, shows incredible weakness. SHe should also make sure that any speech given by Boris or Davies today stays out of the Brexit arena. Some vague statement about May needs full support and they can't offer so better to allow someone who can blah blah.

Is this really the person that the EU is supposed to be negotiating with?

Imreoir2

lawred2 wrote: »

would it?

Would represent more of a coming to senses moment I would have thought.

Not in the UK, a significant number of people don't just want Brexit, they want a no-deal Brexit. Delivering a hard Brexit will be a disaster for the UK, but not delivering a hard Brexit would be a disaster for the political careers of lots of MPs.

It seems that the only hope of a soft Brexit is to prove that "project fear" is infact just plain reality. It might be necessary to allow the UK to crash out and then restart the talks once their ports have collapsed.

judeboy101

Imreoir2 wrote: »

There is a serious debate on if or how Brexit can be cancelled. Artical 50 has been triggered and the article itself does not have a clause that allowes it to be revoked (strangely enough no one thought a government might trigger Article 50 if they were not fully committed to seeing it through.)

Some say it can be revoked unilaterally by the UK, others say it can't be revoked at all. The EU position AFAIK is that it can be revoked, with agreement from the EU 27, but that there would have to be conditions attached to revoking it.

I read a paper on the subject that makes the plausible argument that allowing the UK to revoke Artical 50 without any consequences would create a moral hazzard whereby a government that has no intention of leaving the EU could trigger article 50 and use it to blackmail the institutions without having to actually leave. This in effect is what some remainers in the UK are trying to do, arguing for a new, as Trump would say "top level of special" deal for the UK within the EU in return for revoking Article 50.

I wouldn't let them back in without accepting the euro.

J Mysterio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Certainly from the UK perspective, backing-out without a referendum would be political suicide at home and seen as extremely weak in the EU27 - I'm not saying they would, but the EU could impose requirements on the UK if they decided to stay.

Is it better to look weak and survive or destroy your country on a daft principle?

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Certainly from the UK perspective, backing-out without a referendum would be political suicide at home

We are rapidly approaching the day where no matter what May does, it'll be political suicide.

Based on nothing in particular, I'm starting to really doubt Brexit happening at all. Come March when it's too late for the EU's governments to ratify anything, May will revoke Article 50 and the EU will let it happen with some conditions. It may not be a clear revocation but in effect, something will be signed allowing the UK remain in the EU.

Her term as PM will almost certainly end soon after anyways. Since she was a remainer before, I really don't see her letting a hard Brexit happen instead of no Brexit when her premiership will be ending anyway.

FreudianSlippers

lawred2 wrote: »

would it?

Would represent more of a coming to senses moment I would have thought.

Yes, I think in all senses the UK Government will look much less weak to the EU if they come back and say "we were ready for hard Brexit, but the electorate changed their minds".

VinLieger

judeboy101 wrote: »

I wouldn't let them back in without accepting the euro.

There is zero to be gained by punishing them in such a way, if anything it would just reinforce the brexiteers mindset of the evil euro overlords and probably sway more people to their cause and we would be in the same place again in a couple of years time

Leroy42

She has been called a remainer all the way through, and whilst it is thought that she voted to remain, surely that can be looked on as nothing more than a political calculation, that most expected Remain to win and she wanted to be on the winning side. Not enough to actually campaign for it though.

Then we look at her actual actions. Whilst Home Secretary, she had a constant problem with the ECJ. The ECJ is a core part of the EU so having such disdain for that gives a pretty good pointer. SHe also had a number of issues with regard to deportation due to the ECJ, so again this would cause her to take a dislike of the system.

Then we have her Lancaster House speech and the red lines. There is no way to interpret that speech except that she wanted out of the EU, on her terms and that they couldn't wait to leave.

So I am unsure where this "She is a remainer" is coming from. The Chequers plan, to me, reads like a paper that someone who has hit a brick wall and facing the stark reality of the options came up with. She knows how terrible a hard Brexit, but rather than call the whole thing off (as a remainer would have done by now) she tried to come up with a Brexit whilst reducing the impact, and thus her legacy.

ambro25

VinLieger wrote: »

The customs on the French side is a joint operation between UK and French authorities inspecting trucks.

The joint operation arises out of the Le Touquet agreements (that followed the Sangatte protocol, IIRC). Much of it is non-EU (but EU compatible of course) legacy bilateral stuff going back to the very early 90s at the time the Chunnel works got started.

One of Macron’s main electoral promises was their renegotiation with the U.K.

He’s not started yet, but make no mistake, the ‘situation’ around Calais (and Coquelles where the Chunnel is) still is nitroglycerin within French politics.

[updating edit: the Sandhurst protocol was signed earlier this year, so I’m wrong, Macron has started. However, that doesn’t look Brexit proof to me /update]

IMHO, Macron’s [edit: still] waiting to see what shape Brexit takes, before firing the [edit: next] salvo. Methinks the French are going to want to “take back control”...by exerting far less of it on French soil at French taxpayers’ expense.

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

There is zero to be gained by punishing them in such a way, if anything it would just reinforce the brexiteers mindset of the evil euro overlords and probably sway more people to their cause and we would be in the same place again in a couple of years time

It is not about punishing them, it is making them face up to the realities of the EU. IMO, for too long they have been able to straddle both sides. They are in, but not in. IMO, this is what led to Brexit. They were allowed so many concessions that they really thought the EU would fold over their demands.

The Euro would be a much stronger currency with the UK behind it. Why shouldn't the EU push for it.

If the UK wants to get back in, they should show how committed they are, otherwise we will be back in this position in a few years time

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Why? There was no economic argument for Brexit, why do the Scots need an economic argument to reject Brexit?

Simply note that there will be a cost and it is worth paying to escape the mad rule of Westminster.

The UK is Scotland's biggest export market. They'll need a good counter argument for that in another IndyRef.

VinLieger

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is not about punishing them, it is making them face up to the realities of the EU. IMO, for too long they have been able to straddle both sides. They are in, but not in. IMO, this is what led to Brexit. They were allowed so many concessions that they really thought the EU would fold over their demands.

The Euro would be a much stronger currency with the UK behind it. Why shouldn't the EU push for it.

If the UK wants to get back in, they should show how committed they are, otherwise we will be back in this position in a few years time

But it will be seen as punishing them, realistically by the majority and by doing so we would definitely be back in this position in a few years in that case. Facts don't matter as we should all have already learned, yes it would be a stronger currency and yes both the UK and EU would likely gain a lot from it but you need to win over the UK to see those positives themselves instead of just forcing it on them which is exactly the reasons quite a lot of people say they voted for brexit in the first place rightly or wrongly

Nody

ambro25 wrote: »

The joint operation arises out of the Le Touquet agreements (that followed the Sangatte protocol, IIRC). Much of it is non-EU (but EU compatible of course) legacy bilateral stuff going back to the very early 90s at the time the Chunnel works got started.

One of Macron’s main electoral promises was their renegotiation with the U.K.

He’s not started yet, but make no mistake, the ‘situation’ around Calais (and Coquelles where the Chunnel is) still is nitroglycerin within French politics.

IMHO, Macron’s waiting to see what shape Brexit takes, before firing the opening salvo. Methinks the French are going to want to “take back control”...by exerting far less of it on French soil at French taxpayers’ expense.

The deal was signed in January already; basically UK gets to pay more for the pleasure of keeping their immigration controls as now. Here's a video of the signing.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018845218869862400

May remains trapped on the Brexit roundabout. If these passes the UK will have law preventing the Irish sea border and a hard border. Leaving remaining in the CU as the only option.

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

A deal was signed in January already; basically UK gets to pay more for the pleasure of keeping their immigration controls as now. Here's a video of the signing.

So it was (I updated my post before seeing yours) but it’s not Brexit-proof, not by a long shot. There’s nothing in there about visa checks (one way and/or the other) and it’s mostly irrelevant to (post Brexit) fret.

Put simply, Macron went in for a ‘giz us 10p more’ quick fix, easily built on the UK’s still-current EU membership at the time. He’s got scope to ask for plenty more, including the baby and the kitchen sink, depending on the eventual, actual flavour of Brexit. In his case, no deal can really be turned into a better proposition than ‘a bad deal’...and I dare say the Brit political class knows it.

jm08

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK is Scotland's biggest export market. They'll need a good counter argument for that in another IndyRef.

As far as I can recall from the IndyRef - not having automatic membership of the EU was a big factor in staying in the UK.

Rhineshark

VinLieger wrote: »

Well considering the reigning Monarch is the head of the church of england it would be a bit bizarre in the entirely possible scenario where Harry became king and she was queen and she was of a different religion wouldn't it?


Also one key reason she gave up her US citizenship is due to the US demanding all US citizens regardless of what country they currently work and live in to still file taxes with the IRS. This would have opened up the royal family to having to pay taxes in the US. BTW only 2 countries in the world do this the US and..... Eritrea so claiming the UK are the ones looking inward on this is a bit uninformed.

Fair enough reason for the second, more or less, but not so sure of the first. She is never going to be head of the Anglican church - in the situation of some sort of unexpected carnage through the first five in line, it would still be Harry as Defender of the Faith, not Megyn. Her religion wouldn't make any difference to her role as Queen-Consort, although children would be raised Anglican.


Even if Harry was then eaten by a pack of feral corgis it would not necessarily be a problem for a Regent (if they had issue before Harry's unfortunate corgi incident), or else the throne would pass her by (as she is not royal blood herself) and jump to...possibly Anne's children, although I think she deliberately did not have them ennobled anyway. Megan would be a Queen Dowager at that point and her religion totally irrelevant.

Either way, it is so unlikely that it would cause problems as really not to be neccessary but for Tradition.

ancapailldorcha

jm08 wrote: »

As far as I can recall from the IndyRef - not having automatic membership of the EU was a big factor in staying in the UK.

Indeed it was. However, it's still a big question that needs to be answered.

Leroy42

VinLieger wrote: »

But it will be seen as punishing them, realistically by the majority and by doing so we would definitely be back in this position in a few years in that case. Facts don't matter as we should all have already learned, yes it would be a stronger currency and yes both the UK and EU would likely gain a lot from it but you need to win over the UK to see those positives themselves instead of just forcing it on them which is exactly the reasons quite a lot of people say they voted for brexit in the first place rightly or wrongly

Exactly, facts don't matter. Whether or not the EU are 'nice' to the UK is irrelevant to many in the UK. If they are not commited, and as you say joining the Euro will only result in them wanting out in a few years, then what is the point of letting them back in?

My point being that there is little point them coming back in with the same attitude they left with. At most it will be a holding pattern. If they want to rejoin then they should have considered it carefully, as a country, and determined that the EU is where their future lies.

Coming back in with no consequences will simply mean that they leaned nothing. The failure to get them on board with the Euro was a major mistake by the EU. It has led to the belief that they don't need the EU.

Don't get me wrong, if they end up cancelling A50 and returning to the pre A50 situation I won't be upset, but I think it is nothing more than a sticking plaster.

judeboy101

VinLieger wrote: »

There is zero to be gained by punishing them in such a way, if anything it would just reinforce the brexiteers mindset of the evil euro overlords and probably sway more people to their cause and we would be in the same place again in a couple of years time

They have a distinct advantage in having the ability to set their own rates and devalue if necessary. We don't.

badtoro

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Based on nothing in particular, I'm starting to really doubt Brexit happening at all. Come March when it's too late for the EU's governments to ratify anything, May will revoke Article 50 and the EU will let it happen with some conditions. It may not be a clear revocation but in effect, something will be signed allowing the UK remain in the EU.

Her term as PM will almost certainly end soon after anyways. Since she was a remainer before, I really don't see her letting a hard Brexit happen instead of no Brexit when her premiership will be ending anyway.

Thing is, in that scenario who becomes British PM following May? Would we end up with a head the ball like Mogg or Gove as an anti EU PM of an EU member state following on from this (first?) Brexit debacle?

Or do we end up with Corbyn or some other Labour leader who has been less than supportive of remaining in the EU.

I figure it's best for everyone for the UK to leave, the EU doesn't need the type of instability that a UK populated with remainers and brexiters going at each others throats could bring.

judeboy101

Rhineshark wrote: »

Fair enough reason for the second, more or less, but not so sure of the first. She is never going to be head of the Anglican church - in the situation of some sort of unexpected carnage through the first five in line, it would still be Harry as Defender of the Faith, not Megyn. Her religion wouldn't make any difference to her role as Queen-Consort, although children would be raised Anglican.


Even if Harry was then eaten by a pack of feral corgis it would not necessarily be a problem for a Regent (if they had issue before Harry's unfortunate corgi incident), or else the throne would pass her by (as she is not royal blood herself) and jump to...possibly Anne's children, although I think she deliberately did not have them ennobled anyway. Megan would be a Queen Dowager at that point and her religion totally irrelevant.

Either way, it is so unlikely that it would cause problems as really not to be neccessary but for Tradition.

Actually, the act of settlement, which the UK and over 20 other countries accept when the recognise Liz as their head of state, only precludes Catholics from the throne. Technically any other religion or none can be king /queen so long as they agree to be head of church. But not a catholic. That's why countries like the UK and Canada and new Zealand and oz are inherently sectarian. They target one religious group for discrimination. They could change it in the morning like they did for sucession before baby George was born but they don't.

Nody

And here's the new Brexit minister view on the white paper:

ago
Brexit minister Suella Braverman told the World at One there were "strong views" on the Chequers plan but insisted: "I don't think it's yet tearing the Conservative Party apart.

"It's a generous offer, it places the ball firmly in the EU's court and it's now incumbent on them to respond generously, pragmatically and favourably and we have to move forward with these negotiations."

Yea; I think she might be up for a disappointing week ahead of her...

Leroy42

Its official, May has agreed to all four amendments put forward by the ERG.

So this Chequers agreement, the best way forward and delivering on the will of the people, has been amended within 10 days.

So now they have to resend it to the EU. The one thing the EU asked for was a definitive UK position. May, even though she delayed, couldn't even agree that.

Today was supposed to be the resumption of the negotiations, but the new Brexit Minister didn't even bother to go, instead going to a drinks reception.

devnull

You really can't make this up. From one shambles to the next. But no doubt this will be all of the European Unions fault and the same people cheering for a no deal are the same ones who will be moaning about punishment after leaving and being unemployed with no workers rights.

Professor Moriarty

I think Ireland/the EU is like a person who doesn't want their partner to leave the family home and who is patiently soothing them while waiting for them to change their mind and come to their senses. If they really want to go but spend their time blaming you for not leaving and for not being the partner they wanted, then just help them pack their bags and shut the door behind them. At this stage, personally, I want them to leave. I'm beginning not to like what I see.

judeboy101

Am I right in thinking one of those amendments makes any backstop illegal?

ArmaniJeanss

Just an FYI for anyone (or maybe it was just me ) who doesn't know what the 4 amendments are.

from the guardian

The most important is new clause 36, which would make it unlawful for HM Revenue and Customs to collect VAT or excise duty on behalf of the EU without the EU reciprocating. This would effectively block the facilitated customs arrangement plan in Theresa May’s Brexit white paper, and would be amount to a very significant U-turn if the government does accept it.

The others are: new clause 37, which would make it unlawful for Northern Ireland to form a separate customs territory to Great Britain; amendment 72, which would require any customs union with the EU to be established by primary legislation; and amendment 73, which would stop the UK joining the EU’s VAT regime.

Sierra Oscar

devnull wrote: »

You really can't make this up. From one shambles to the next. But no doubt this will be all of the European Unions fault and the same people cheering for a no deal are the same ones who will be moaning about punishment after leaving and being unemployed with no workers rights.

It's astonishing. The 'Chequers Deal' is now dead and the Whitepaper is irrelevant less than a week after its publication.

You have to seriously question whether it's worthwhile for the EU to continue negotiations. There will be many pushing for a suspension until the UK Government moves back to the position contained in the Whitepaper (which still requires further compromise in anycase).

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018870124290461696


Dear god what a clusterf**k

Leroy42

Doesn't Clause 37 go back on the backstop, and thus render the December agreement null and void?

What happened to the ERG stated position that the UK should not tie May's hands in the negotiations, yet it is absolutely doing that here (this is not a question I came up with, but I can't recall whether I saw it here or twitter etc. Apologies for not referencing it!)

But in truth, in really makes no difference. How May can go on the TV yesterday and then simply fold on this, quite serious, amendments today is beyond me. Jebus, even if one doesn't have respect for Brexit, or the EU or even the UK, surely she has some self respect?

Silent Running

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It's astonishing. The 'Chequers Deal' is now dead and the Whitepaper is irrelevant less than a week after its publication.

You have to seriously question whether it's worthwhile for the EU to continue negotiations. There will be many pushing for a suspension until the UK Government moves back to the position contained in the Whitepaper (which still requires further compromise).

I have a feeling that the EU team realised a long time ago that this was going nowhere. However, they can't be seen as the side to pull the plug on talks. The UK can, and probably will, babble on until they crash out. All the EU can do is stand by in case there is anything they can do to help the EU.

VinLieger

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018870124290461696


Dear god what a clusterf**k

jesus...... the logic at work here is baffling

trellheim

Here are the ACTUAL amendments on the order paper ( well worth a read )

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0128/amend/taxation_daily_rep_0713.pdf


Finally I'll remind all concerned that they are trying to sort out NI in the TF50 today if anyone has noticed

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/agenda_16-19_july.pdf


keep an eye on the tweets from Katy Adler

lawred2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its official, May has agreed to all four amendments put forward by the ERG.

So this Chequers agreement, the best way forward and delivering on the will of the people, has been amended within 10 days.

So now they have to resend it to the EU. The one thing the EU asked for was a definitive UK position. May, even though she delayed, couldn't even agree that.

Today was supposed to be the resumption of the negotiations, but the new Brexit Minister didn't even bother to go, instead going to a drinks reception.

She seems to be an incredibly dim witted person. Utterly clueless and bereft of any leadership attributes.

trellheim

Raab hasn't bothered to go and neither has Hunt to the EU Foreign Min

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-eu-talks-firegin-ministers-cabinet-customs-bill-vote-conservatives-a8449226.html


FK SAKE what are they plaing atg with NI on the table its a straight insult.

FrancieBrady

trellheim wrote: »

Here are the ACTUAL amendments on the order paper ( well worth a read )

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0128/amend/taxation_daily_rep_0713.pdf


Finally I'll remind all concerned that they are trying to sort out NI in the TF50 today if anyone has noticed

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/agenda_16-19_july.pdf


keep an eye on the tweets from Katy Adler

Can't find a relevant twitter in that name. Can you link?

lawred2

The majority of these Tory lads have lived a consequence free life. From birth many of them have enjoyed privilege and wealth.

They see all of this as an elaborate board game.

trellheim

Can't find a relevant twitter in that name. Can you link?

sorry katya adler. Although looks like she's on holliers. Plus most of the pol corrs are in Helsinki ( including Tony Connelly ) covering the movable train wreck that is trump


https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler