RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

There are a number of options which I’m sure that the EU would be open to: customs union, EEA membership, single market membership. I mean, the EU produced this, what, 2 years ago?

 

They certainly did 2 years ago at the start of negotiations. Have they indicated they are willing to reopen negotiations though? Not really. So again, take away all the talking in parliament , all the wants of this side and that and what each party promises. There are still only 3 options that at this moment can happen and the only one that nearly everyone has said shouldn't happen is the default unless something changes.

Wake up UK government. Stop pretending there are lots of choices to discuss. There aren't.

That’s fair, I was just pointing at that he had indeed been talking up about a 4th option. I didn’t say it was an achievable or realistic option (although, if he became PM and asked for the reference to the backstop to be removed from the WA because we would simply be in a permanent CU, I’d be surprised if the EU objected).

Yossarian wrote:

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

There are a number of options which I’m sure that the EU would be open to: customs union, EEA membership, single market membership. I mean, the EU produced this, what, 2 years ago?

  They certainly did 2 years ago at the start of negotiations. Have they indicated they are willing to reopen negotiations though? Not really. So again, take away all the talking in parliament , all the wants of this side and that and what each party promises. There are still only 3 options that at this moment can happen and the only one that nearly everyone has said shouldn't happen is the default unless something changes. Wake up UK government. Stop pretending there are lots of choices to discuss. There aren't.

That’s fair, I was just pointing at that he had indeed been talking up about a 4th option. I didn’t say it was an achievable or realistic option (although, if he became PM and asked for the reference to the backstop to be removed from the WA because we would simply be in a permanent CU, I’d be surprised if the EU objected).

 

Certainly agree with that. The EU don't want this but they cant keep extending. To Quote Doctor Strange, we're in the End Game now.

(of course, I fully expect the possibility that the EU will back down in October and provide another extension - I just don't think its helping either side)

From what I hear Germany at least would be happy to give us enough time as is necessary. They would open the book again I'd imagine as long as we come up with what can demonstrably get through parliament.

The key to it is the Irish Border and how that is handled. It's going to require some sort of climb down from the UK.  I have marvelled how the one issue that could unravel the whole thing was given lip service and dismissed as some sort of IT project.

monkey wrote:

We can have an extension for something, but not one so we can carry on running around with our heads up our arses, chuntering away about renegotiating.

I sincerely believe that, as long as we have Tories in power, running around with heads up arses chuntering about renegotiating is all we can expect.

Pity.

Andrew Lilico’s having quite the time on Twitter today.

Yossarian wrote:

Pity.

Lol. Technically it was to allow another vote on the WA which happened a week after. And the fallback was 31st October if that vote failed (or sometime in June if we didn't have the Euro elections). 

In reality, or at least wot I reckon, is that it was to avoid No deal. And they'll always make that choice. But they're turning the screw a bit, as they did before, to push us into a plan. It's the same position as May really. Both say "give us this thing or it's no deal". 
Neither side gives the thing. 
"Ok then, extension."

He’s saying that ‘old man’ referred to his stepdad, which doesn’t seem unreasonable.

As it happens, my Stepdad died a few days before the EU referendum too. And his funeral was on the morning of the results.

The wake was quite awkward. Everyone there, bar me and missus, was full-on Sun reading, leave-voting, what we now call brexiteers.

We've got something ridiculous like 7 or 8 weeks of parliamentary time before 31st October anyway. There's going to be another extension. it might be technical to let us put through some stuff. Or it might be because of heads still up arses.

monkey wrote:

There's going to be another extension. it might be technical to let us put through some stuff. Or it might be because of heads still up arses.

It’s going to be the heads up arses and you know it.

davyK wrote:

The "they-need-us-more-than-we-need-them" attitude is really hard to fathom. So do they really believe it or is it bombast?

The hard brexit public believe it. For the politicians it’s bombast. They’re just courting support from the former group.

Live footage from Westminster, there.

@Diluted_Dante.

I have been thinking about a few posts I made about Jeremy Corbyn a few days back and my spikey responses to some things you posted.

It really made me think about why I was getting annoyed. The fact is I have in my mind, come to regard some ex-members of terrorist organisations in NI to be fit to rule.

Martin McGuinness was probably the best of the bunch. A man who openly admitted to IRA membership and yet who ended up as Dep. First Minister of NI work with Rev. Ian Paisley.

In fact after Paisley retired I would have been quite happy for him to be sole leader. He was statesmanlike and from what I hear a very effective behind doors negotiator.

I am from the other side of the NI community so I would consider myself to be an a minority holding that opinion; though I believe that there may have been more with similar secretive thoughts than I dare to wish. This would in no way imply agreeing with what happened, more to do with being a believer in redemption.

So f I can have that going on, why would I respond in such a way to Jeremy Corbyn? So I have climbed down off my high horse on that after some rational thought.

So sorry if I was snappy again.

I still don't think Corbyn is fit to lead as he is too idealistic and not really suited to this messy compromised world.

davyK wrote:

@Diluted_Dante.

I have been thinking about a few posts I made about Jeremy Corbyn a few days back and my spikey responses to some things you posted.

It really made me think about why I was getting annoyed. The fact is I have in my mind, come to regard some ex-members of terrorist organisations in NI to be fit to rule.

Martin McGuinness was probably the best of the bunch. A man who openly admitted to IRA membership and yet who ended up as Dep. First Minister of NI work with Rev. Ian Paisley.

In fact after Paisley retired I would have been quite happy for him to be sole leader. He was statesmanlike and from what I hear a very effective behind doors negotiator.

I am from the other side of the NI community so I would consider myself to be an a minority holding that opinion; though I believe that there may have been more with similar secretive thoughts than I dare to wish. This would in no way imply agreeing with what happened, more to do with being a believer in redemption.

So f I can have that going on, why would I respond in such a way to Jeremy Corbyn? So I have climbed down off my high horse on that after some rational thought.

So sorry if I was snappy again.

I still don't think Corbyn is fit to lead as he is too idealistic and not really suited to this messy compromised world.

That's a great post Davy. There's not enough of this kind of considered thought these days. Nice one.