News0 min ago
Sauce For The Goose?
34 Answers
Former Chancellor Philip Hammond has accused the PM of trying to wreck the chance of a new Brexit deal, by making demands the EU could never accept.
https:/
so it's ok for the EUSSR to have "unacceptable" demands but not us! right oh! the gaul of the Quisling knows no bounds!
https:/
so it's ok for the EUSSR to have "unacceptable" demands but not us! right oh! the gaul of the Quisling knows no bounds!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The EU set out 568 pages of demands (aka "The Withdrawal Agreement") of which the backstop was just one of an almost entirely unacceptable list. Mr Johnson is right to demand its removal (however Mr Hammond views that demand) as it is the most unacceptable of all. But why should Mr Hammond worry? We have been told over an over that the deal is not negotiable so I don't see why demanding the removal of one demand is an issue.
The man is beyond a joke.
Philip Hammond and politicians like him have been of trying to wreck the chance of a Brexit deal by voting for May's anti-Brexit "deal". And encouraging further extensions.
The EU have also been trying to wreck the chance by refusing to accept basic necessities of a deal, and by making it's own unacceptable demands no nation would ever accept.
A no-deal Brexit would be *delivery* of the 2016 referendum result.
I trust that Parliament has no means to prevent a no-deal exit since an undemocratic unrepresentative parliament should not be able to override the democratic decision of the people, for that would be a betrayal of the people's trust.
I can well believe that Mr Hammond, "did everything he could" to block preparations for leaving and had "undermined negotiations". It seems in character to me.
The former chancellor failed to reject the suggestion in a tweet, by admitting that he tried to block any true Brexit by voting three times for Mrs. May's anti-Brexit stitch-up.
It is vital & necessary that we ditch the Irish border backstop plan in order to exit, it is totally unnecessary, but the EU has continued to use that issue they created in order to refuse to negotiate an agreement; thus proving they are the stumbling block. And the world can see it.
Philip Hammond and politicians like him have been of trying to wreck the chance of a Brexit deal by voting for May's anti-Brexit "deal". And encouraging further extensions.
The EU have also been trying to wreck the chance by refusing to accept basic necessities of a deal, and by making it's own unacceptable demands no nation would ever accept.
A no-deal Brexit would be *delivery* of the 2016 referendum result.
I trust that Parliament has no means to prevent a no-deal exit since an undemocratic unrepresentative parliament should not be able to override the democratic decision of the people, for that would be a betrayal of the people's trust.
I can well believe that Mr Hammond, "did everything he could" to block preparations for leaving and had "undermined negotiations". It seems in character to me.
The former chancellor failed to reject the suggestion in a tweet, by admitting that he tried to block any true Brexit by voting three times for Mrs. May's anti-Brexit stitch-up.
It is vital & necessary that we ditch the Irish border backstop plan in order to exit, it is totally unnecessary, but the EU has continued to use that issue they created in order to refuse to negotiate an agreement; thus proving they are the stumbling block. And the world can see it.
Bercow is also sticking his oar in.
https:/
https:/
ich: "What unacceptable demand is the EU making, as a matter of interest? " - May's "deal" is full of them but the most prominent is the whole back stop game.
naomi: "What exactly is 'a dedicated little Englander' and why is it something to be ridiculed? " - the VBQ/anti British don't like it if you back your own side.
naomi: "What exactly is 'a dedicated little Englander' and why is it something to be ridiculed? " - the VBQ/anti British don't like it if you back your own side.
The only reason the backstop is an issue is because of the DUP. It was Theresa May’s unhappy lot (partly her fault of course) to be beholden to a handful of MPs from a party which NI to be an integral part of the UK when it suits it but not party of the UK when it doesn’t.
Of course it may be that another excuse would have been found by others instead, but in this matter the DUP led and others willingly followed.
Of course it may be that another excuse would have been found by others instead, but in this matter the DUP led and others willingly followed.
If in a two sided discussion both negotiators cannot agree on just one of the opposite side's firm requirement then a disagreement (no deal) is the inevitable outcome. Until that situation changes the two are going to be at odds. For either to say the other is being unreasonable is simply one way (and not a helpful one) of describing a lack of agreement. Meanwhile there are only two ways to proceed in the present Brexit situation, continue as is until such time as an agreement (any agreement) is reached or for complete separation and the two parties go their own way. The former is a known set of circumstances, the second has an unknown outcome (hope may spring eternal but it guarantees nothing). Neither outcome altogether excludes a future agreement, including by the way the latter outcome being reversed into the former position.
The question that was never settled but which was the obvious one was: if parliament does not endorse the treaty then what happens? Because different MPs will have rejected it for different reasons. Some don’t want Brexit, some want their own agreement, some want the people to vote on it, some wanted to use voting against as an excuse to leave with no deal at all.
So the mess we are now in was inevitable and of course explains why the government fought not to let parliament have a say.
So the mess we are now in was inevitable and of course explains why the government fought not to let parliament have a say.
