-
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.
Sure, the EU legislatures have a role in ratification. For the UK, as soon as Boris says yes, it's effectively ratified. (Technically Parliament can vote to reject it entirely within 21 days, but the Government schedules the votes so...)
If the alternative is no deal then there is no question. They'd just have to be clear that they thought it was a shit deal, but a shit deal is, infact, better than no deal.
Yeah, they can even get around the minimal sitting for 21 days after laying the treaty before parliament if they want.
We are not talking about seesaws, are we?
This is not pedantic at all and goes to the core of the argument....is everything Black and White or there are Greys in between?
Put me on the theoretical Grey camp.
On the Brexit issue though? I'm on the Black camp, I hope the EU doesn't concede an inch and the UK and Bojo crash out gloriously if that's their wish
There's an element of risk/reward to it as well for Labour as well - if the PM is seen to need Labour to pass what will be seen as his great achievement, it absolutely puts him on shaky ground going forward.
Sure, though a sham vote that has no actual effect is slightly easier for Labour to ignore.
That said there are likely to be some provisions of the trade deal that need primary legislation to implement, and that's where Labour's position becomes tricky, depending on what gets brought in. Like, Labour aren't going to object to a 'I can't believe it's not the ECJ' oversight committee, but the right to weaken standards? That's far trickier for Labour to vote for, and if Starmer tries to whip it he'll have another fun rebellion on his hands.
I imagine the government will set up a parliament vote anyway, to force Labour to have a position. No matter which direction Labour votes, the Tories can use it as spin for the next election.
Going back to the original point, 98% of what comes out of Raab's mouth is almost certainly a lie, but you also have to consider that he would bring up things that the EU would specifically avoid mentioning because they're inconvenient.
It's not pedantry, it's called nuance. The jump from "somewhere in the middle" to "in the middle" between your sentences is already erasing that nuance - if someone told you to sit "somewhere in the middle of a seesaw", there would clearly be scope for interpretation.
Going back to the original point, 98% of what comes out of Raab's mouth is almost certainly a lie, but you also have to consider that he would bring up things that the EU would specifically avoid mentioning because they're inconvenient.
"Somewhere in the middle", in this context (and seesaws) means "somewhere around the midpoint", not "everything that isn't the edge".
And the only reason to take Raab's words into consideration, about anything, is if you've never heard of the man and don't know his track record. Otherwise you are knowingly fucking yourself in your own brain.
I am never going to a playground with yous lot!
Yeah but you'd still know what they meant.
And the only reason to take Raab's words into consideration, about anything, is if you've never heard of the man and don't know his track record. Otherwise you are knowingly fucking yourself in your own brain.
I am never going to a playground with yous lot!
I suppose the problem would become if the deal is terrible. By leaving it so last minute they've left little choice between bad deal and no deal.
Even then, they would have to vote deal, I suppose, but the public will attach any blame to those who voted for it. You'd like to think that the Tories would eat most of the flack but I no longer have that much faith in the British public.
You know if you take an infinite number of Raabs and make them issue an infinite number of statements, eventually one of them will utter the truth.
Are you talking to me? Because
Is hard to keep invested in all this when they keep kicking the ball forward...why? So the UK can see the disaster face to face in January? Not for expected is less pathetic really....
And I'm just reading on the Telegraph Barnier saying "Deal can be done this week if UK compromises on fish"...is this some kind of a joke??
ZZZzzzzzz.....
And I'm just reading on the Telegraph Barnier saying "Deal can be done this week if UK compromises on fish"...is this some kind of a joke??
ZZZzzzzzz.....
Part of giving someone the benefit of the doubt is recognising that they're almost certainly lying, yes.
There's an odd irony in how Boris originally just used fishing waters to troll the SNP about sovereignty, and now he's stuck to it and it's become the actual hangup. This whole process is just filled with things you couldn't put in fiction because they'd be considered too cliche.
From Guardian liveblog:
"The Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale, who voted remain in the 2016 referendum, has said Boris Johnson should resign if he fails to get a trade deal with the EU. Gale told PA Media:
He'll be in a minority, but it would be nice for even some of the more level-headed Brexiteers to share his view.
It'd be nice for Boris to go anyway, but hey.
He's not honourable though, so that's an issue.
"The Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale, who voted remain in the 2016 referendum, has said Boris Johnson should resign if he fails to get a trade deal with the EU. Gale told PA Media:
Gale was one of only two Tory MPs to vote against the government's internal market bill earlier this month."
He'll be in a minority, but it would be nice for even some of the more level-headed Brexiteers to share his view.
It'd be nice for Boris to go anyway, but hey.
He's not honourable though, so that's an issue.
Last edited:
Sounds like the EU are pretty clear on not rushing any deal out the door by the deadline.
Right so, in less than two days of several years, we've gone from unlikely...very unlikely...unlikely...likely. Utter, confusing bollocks. I do not envy the work of modern day historians. Hopefully Andrew Lloyd Webber can fashion a musical out of this because that's all it is good for.
I don't even know what these people (usually with football club avatars) think they're winning at this point.
We could have just fucked off already if it's about sticking fingers up at continentals. Perhaps it's the mackeral?
SOVRENTEA.
Should always pull a James O'brien with these folks and ask them which law(s) in-particular they are looking forward to not having to follow anymore.
They won't be able to name a single one
95% is nowhere near the middle in a scale of 0 to 100. It is still a shade of grey, sure. But it is a very very clear grey. The idea that the middle is a viable thing to discuss is nonsense depending on the two sides.
It's a shame they don't understand what it is or that the country never lost it.
Two things. First, Cameron ran away before UK triggered article 50. Triggering it so soon was May's doing. Second, who's to say this won't happen again?
Tories could go back to infighting and fail to pass anything.
It would have been fine because we wouldn't have been rolling towards the edge of a cliff. If it took a decade to figure out, good. Rushing into things is never the right move.Two things. First, Cameron ran away before UK triggered article 50. Triggering it so soon was May's doing. Second, who's to say this won't happen again?
Tories could go back to infighting and fail to pass anything.
Not rushing things is good, yes, but what would've been fine? I'm afraid I don't follow.
Two things. First, Cameron ran away before UK triggered article 50. Triggering it so soon was May's doing. Second, who's to say this won't happen again?
Tories could go back to infighting and fail to pass anything.
Crazy to look at the above in hindsight - what a wild time that was in Parliament lol
Customs union so close too...
Alright, fine was the wrong word. If the government had decided to hold off on article 50 until a plan was worked out and agreed upon by a majority of the house, things probably wouldn't have been fine. God only knows how the general election would have turned out. But it's hard to imagine the country being more riven than it is now.
Maybe we'd have a UKIP PM by now. But we kinda do already.
I agree, but the no person you quoted didn't say "near the middle" but "somewhere in the middle".
I think it's just a semantic issue, I agree that is not near the middle in this case, as you say, closer to 90 than to 50, and if it was up to me i wouldn't even move to 90 in this particular case, as I also noted.
But as I was saying is not always like this, in some other case it could be 50 or 70 or 10, so all I was saying is that we have to go case by case.
Edit: To put examples, I think there's much more wiggle room regarding fishing rights than on accountability.
Last edited:
Ah, I really just wasn't sure about what you were saying would've been fine since there were several points in my post and the post I quoted it could've referred to.
That being said, forcing themselves onto a hard time limit was a spectacular choice to... keep voters from going UKIP or something? Whatever they intended to do, this is a spectacular mess they've forced themselves into.
A major part of the difficulty with the idea of holding back on triggering Article 50 until there was "a plan" is that there was no way for the UK to unilaterally make a plan and be sure that the plan would survive the next few years of politics in both the UK and EU.
Even with the alternative votes, a lot of MPs did not appear to truly grasp that the process was multi-staged, with a deal on the future relationship only happening after a withdrawal agreement. They were voting for future-relationship stuff (like customs union membership) that simply would not ever be part of the negotiations that were then happening (the withdrawal agreement). Some of them definitely did understand this (including Kenneth Clarke himself) but it needed to be explained repeatedly to others in the Commons debates.
With such basic misunderstandings being rife, I think the chances are that even if the UK took 10 years to debate a plan, that plan would still end up being based on nonsensical misunderstandings, and would fall to pieces literally the moment negotiations began. I don't think that additional time would have helped solve the difficulty of politicians in the UK not only having no clue about how the EU worked, but also wrongly believing their own idiotic suppositions about how the EU worked and thus not being open to education or correction.
It's entirely possible to argue that this would still be better than what happened. A nonsense plan that fell apart in 2026 would, after all, still give the UK more time in the EU than the reality of a nonsense plan that fell apart in 2017. On the other hand, though, as you note, it could also result in a UKIP PM (or UKIP-steered Conservative government) that crashed out with no deal - or even worse, unilaterally repealed the ECA and insta-crashed out of the EU (with no transition or negotiations of any kind).
I remember watching all these votes live over a period of a week or so - it was so entertaining. It kept me on my seat.
EU parliament in wait-and-see mode on Brexit trade talks
www.reuters.com
'Narrow path' to Brexit trade deal visible, next few days critical
www.reuters.com
EU parliament in wait-and-see mode on Brexit trade talks
The European Parliament is in wait-and-see mode on EU-UK trade negotiations, the head of the chamber said on Monday, adding the lawmakers will act on Brexit whether there is an agreement or not.
www.reuters.com
'Narrow path' to Brexit trade deal visible, next few days critical
'Narrow path' to Brexit trade deal visible, next few days critical
European Union Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said on Monday that sealing a trade pact with Britain was still possible before the country's final break with the 27-nation bloc on Dec. 31 but the next few days of negotiations would be critical.
www.reuters.com
It was a time that I'm glad I lived through. It really felt like one horrifying/comedic soap opera twist after another.
OP
OP
Groundhog dayEU parliament in wait-and-see mode on Brexit trade talks
EU parliament in wait-and-see mode on Brexit trade talks
The European Parliament is in wait-and-see mode on EU-UK trade negotiations, the head of the chamber said on Monday, adding the lawmakers will act on Brexit whether there is an agreement or not.
'Narrow path' to Brexit trade deal visible, next few days critical
'Narrow path' to Brexit trade deal visible, next few days critical
European Union Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said on Monday that sealing a trade pact with Britain was still possible before the country's final break with the 27-nation bloc on Dec. 31 but the next few days of negotiations would be critical.
Same shit, different week
He wasn't a professor he was an A-level history school teacher. And he didn't. I think people are being obtuse what I wrote on purpose, but the thread has drifted.
But this isn't the thread for this, at this point lets just say no deal when neither side can compromise and end this circus.
Last edited:
Some trade deals take a whole lot longer, stop buying into tory rubbish about the deadline etc.
It's no deal from January, it doesn't mean talks have to stop and it doesn't mean there hasn't been any compromise already.
I take it you would actually like a trade deal at some point with the continent/EU and our biggest market?
I'm told it's something about citrus fruits and purchase tax.
I genuinely wonder what they even talk about. UK wants cake or doesn't want cake at all but don't tell anyone and EU wants a deal but will protect the single market which is fair, deal on offer seems pretty decent all things considered even with the ratchet clause. I don't get it.