Sounds like he has been watching too much of Jim White on Sky Sports News on transfer deadline day. All he needs is a shocking yellow tie.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is the UK still going to debate putting the "lets break international law" clause in again tonight? I imagine that would be the end of negotiations.
I mean it's tariffs either way. Probably less tariffs in a deal and the Tory's are nothing if not cunning fucks and would try and structure any changes so as to not trigger them.
Maybe a few months of WTO tariffs will soften them up.
Maybe a few months of WTO tariffs will soften them up.
Simon says deals dead if they go ahead. I'd says they'll push the debate, or not vote?
It'd still go back to the Lords though, no?
If so, that's probably seen as 'safe' because it'll be amended again there.
The Lords can, and will be overruled.
The EU has already said that legislation is likely to be one of their lines in the sand (hence having to get negotiations done by this week).
As I understand it, the British position is, if there's a deal, we take those clauses out of those bills. If there's not, we leave them in.
At which point, they are maybe irrelevant anyway? I'm not really sure.
At the very least that was the position for the most recent law breaking bill. The internal market's bill i think is the same but I've seen precious little coverage of it.
This is exactly the point though. The EU are saying they wont agree to a deal if the UK are willing to break the law with regard to their existing deal (Withdrawal agreement).
So if it gets sent back to the House of Lords with those clauses back in (this week?)... it's likely game over.
The most recent law breaking bill is this one, it was just pushed back because of EU negotiations (and the lord being WTF DONT BREAK INTERNATIONAL LAW). EU has said that if they pass a law that breaks the previous deal with regards to Northern Ireland, then there is 0 trust in the UK (given that they just broke the deal they had) and it would be no deal, as you need a certain lvl of trust in this kind of deal. Its pretty clear you wouldnt negotiate with someone who reneges of their deals when they see fit.
Meanwhile Logistics are already getting hammered by COVID leading to shortages:
But hey, how bad could Brexit be for international shipping?
But hey, how bad could Brexit be for international shipping?
I think the point is, we agree a deal, don't worry about us reneging on our previous deal (in this circumstance) we will pull it from the bill. Until then we are going to push it through because.... I don't know. As with everything else this government does, I assume it is just posturing.
As you say, the entire thing is pointless under these circumstances but it's 2020. I've given up pretending anyone in power has any idea what they are doing.
I think there was also a second bill that also included a similar international law breaking policy. Had a look and I believe it is this, a second bill that basically does the same thing:
As well as the internal market legislation, the government is expected to table the taxation bill on Wednesday that will include similar measures relating to Northern Ireland.
Which the rest of the world sees as "Don't worry about having to trust our word, because you can't".
I've heard a lot of people say if we stumble into a No Deal that'd be so brutal the UK would be back begging for a more comprehensive trade deal, a bit like how the backlash to the poll tax was enough to get the Goverment to back down.
My fear is that if we crash out the hard-core Milton Friedman Libertarian nutters of the Goverment will double down and go for a 'Singapore on the Thames' Tax-haven madness. They're the type who don't care about riots in the street, people dieing or even getting voted out.
My fear is that if we crash out the hard-core Milton Friedman Libertarian nutters of the Goverment will double down and go for a 'Singapore on the Thames' Tax-haven madness. They're the type who don't care about riots in the street, people dieing or even getting voted out.
Except Singapore for all of it's faults has a degree of competency and technocratic efficiency that this British Government will never have. Instead we will have have corruption, excess, waste, and inefficiency similar to a banana republic.
For sure but it's been obvious for years that we decided we didn't need other countries to trust us.
For example:
Brexit: Final bid to prevent huge new tariffs ruining African farmers amid allegations of UK 'bullying'
Farmers in Ghana will be hit with huge new tariffs on key exports including bananas and tuna, unless the country agrees to 'roll over' its existing trade deal, from the UK's EU membership, by the end of the month.
But its government has protested it would be forced to break a legal agreement with other West African countries – and has condemned the "take it or leave it" approach pursued by London.
Liz Truss, the trade secretary, has refused to allow existing trade terms to continue until the row can be settled, despite warnings of tens of thousands of "devastating" job losses in Ghana.
Oh, they definitely don't care and have 4 years in the bag. It's like the pandemic, they will have set things up to reap the public emergency funds and speculators, investment funds, disaster capitalists are all ready to go. Brexit doesn't effect most of these MPs and people are too far down the leave drain to see it as anything but the EU's fault and worth it is my guess. It might be shit and total chaos but that doesn't matter.
That's the Lexiter "African farmers" argument thoroughly shot to pieces then. Still, thanks for enabling the right wing demagogues.
OK, so I asked the Guardian journalist who runs the politcis liveblog if he could explain what's going on with the IMF, he has posted this on the liveblog:
Some readers have been asking why so little is being said this morning about the Commons debate on the internal market bill this afternoon? If the government reinserts the clauses allowing it to over-rule parts of the Brexit withdrawal agreement (in breach of international law), doesn't that crush all prospects of a trade deal? And why isn't the EU saying so explicitly, as the pro-European Labour peer Andrew Adonis was yesterday?
The bill remains a stumbling block, but this evening's vote will not be the final word. If MPs do vote to reinsert the offending clauses into the bill, it doesn't become law automatically. The bill will return to the Lords on Wednesday and peers are likely to remove them again. (The government lost the first division last month by 268 votes.) So the government still has time to abandon these aspects of the bill as part of an overall trade agreement. (Some of them would become redundant anyway; one involves giving the UK government a say over tariffs for goods that might be heading for the EU market, but under a free trade deal there would be no tariffs.)
It is thought that Michael Gove is likely to be discussing this with Maroš Šefčovič, the European commission vice president, in Brussels today.
Gove and Šefčovič are co-chairs of the joint committee, the body set up to oversee the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. Earlier I said they were attending a meeting of the committee. That's wrong. It is actually a political meeting outside the formal joint committee process. They will "discuss issues related to their work as co-chairs of the joint committee", the Cabinet Office said.
And why is the EU not vocally insisting this morning that the offending clauses in the internal market bill will go? Out of tact. It wants a deal, it knows the UK government understands its objections, but it also accepts that it would be easier for Boris Johnson to drop the contentious provisions in the bill seemingly as a gesture of goodwill, rather than as an obvious climbdown forced by the EU.
Like placating a toddler. How deeply pathetic we've become.
Johnson to speak to Von der Leyen at 4pm UK time
This is from Eric Mamer, the European commission's chief spokesman; 5pm in Brussels time is 4pm in London.
This is from Eric Mamer, the European commission's chief spokesman; 5pm in Brussels time is 4pm in London.
I dont know why he would say that when Australia is actively working on a trade agreement with the EU... right now.
The Tories' preferred solution to the Northern Ireland question was literally "you should give Ireland back to us".
Everybody relax, Gove is on the case:
Gove heads to Brussels to thrash out deal on post-Brexit Northern Ireland checks
Gove heads to Brussels to thrash out deal on post-Brexit Northern Ireland checks
Lexiters have become very quiet in the last year, funnily enough.
Received what's likely to be my last ever tariff / fee free parcel from the EU today. It's not even close to the worst thing we'll lose... but it still makes me a bit sad.
Next time we come visit family in the UK my better half will need a visa. Wild.
Retro-gaming shops from the UK are/were a great way to have access to some retro-products no as widely available in the EU.
I know UK media is absolutely fucked. But how british UK can just constantly put their trust in these clowns as they continually fail to deliver anything is beyond me.
I think it's because there's an EU council meeting on Thursday where they'd need to start the ratification process.
Edit - Yeah: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/calendar/?filters=2031
Sky's reporter said not to read too much into that.
Granted, I was half-listening, but I don't expect that to be some hard deadline.
to be honest, I've been hearing about 'deadlines' for the last 4 years and none of them seem to actually amount to anything lol
Granted, I was half-listening, but I don't expect that to be some hard deadline.
to be honest, I've been hearing about 'deadlines' for the last 4 years and none of them seem to actually amount to anything lol
Well it has to be ratified in council and parliament at least. Parliament said that they would be open to vote on December 28. EU could provisionally apply and have the vote next year but I don't know if that would fly seeing how UK's negotiators behaved...
I'm putting my conspiratorial foil hat on again, but it seems now that internal market and finance bills were introduced as a safeguard to ensure that no deal occurred, just in case the EU gave too much ground and a deal looked likely to happen.
I mean that literally has to be the reason as to why this is being rammed through at the same point talks reach their climax surely? For the talks to self implode?
I mean that literally has to be the reason as to why this is being rammed through at the same point talks reach their climax surely? For the talks to self implode?
Watching this Commons urgent question about the progress of a deal and it's the usual nonsense.
Labour critique the Government, and the Government are all like "why aren't you blindly supporting us blah blah blah"
Labour critique the Government, and the Government are all like "why aren't you blindly supporting us blah blah blah"
I wonder if that might make the European Parliament more inclined to want to have the deal agreed and applied provisionally. If they can vote on it next year they will have some time to see how the UK applies the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement as well as the provisions of the trade agreement. That'd give the European Parliament some measure of post-hoc leverage that it otherwise wouldn't have.
Government have offocially said they will pull the law breaking part of the IMB bill if a deal is signed:
UK Government statement on the UK-EU Joint Committee and the Implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol
UK Government statement on the UK-EU Joint Committee and the Implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol
OP
OP
Don't call it a retreat. Merely advancing in the opposite direction.
They really fucked themselves with this because this stunt only hardened EU arguments on oversight since no one trusts them.
I remember reading at the time that they were shocked by the reaction it. Same thing happened with proroguing parliament. They are like a bunch of teenagers thinking they are outsmarting everyone, when they are just idiots wanking in their bedroom.
What did they think was going to happen? Everyone thought it would be a cheeky jape and Europe would give us a better deal for our ballsy attitude?
Is it me or is that statement basically meaningless? If a deal was signed, they wouldn't need that legislation anyway.
2nd call hasn't achieved anything