OV9

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:48 am I bet they have their friends send them a hamper every month from London with all the quinoa and kale they can eat.

I bet they're dead to their london friends now.

Sadly, the local butcher closed down last year and you can get all the organic rabbit food you need in the local not-for-profit shop. That's if you can be bothered to wait long enough for the enlightened moron behind the counter to figure out how to use the till.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 7:48 am I bet they have their friends send them a hamper every month from London with all the quinoa and kale they can eat.

None?

Anyway, back on track. Theresa May is now going to vote against the deal she negotiated alongside Dominic Raab and David Davis, who will also be voting against the deal they negotiated. It'll be interesting to see the queue of foreign entities desperate to do a deal with a country with such magnificent negotiating skills and commitment to the deals we agree.

"Voting against the deal" is a bit of a silly mischaracterisation of today's votes to be honest. The vote on her deal was had in the first meaningful vote - she lost that and these are votes on amendments to what her next plan of action is given she cannot get her deal past the house in its current form.

The DAG argument that this is in some way duplicitous and going back on an agreed deal is also silly - that argument would then apply to any deal or treaty which failed to be ratified and had subsequently to be changed, which in the EU's case on FTAs is numerous and frequent. I'm also not sure anyone would think negotiating the withdrawal from a longstanding involvement in a bloc which is deeply enmeshed within our legal system, controls our borders, etc. etc. is even remotely like negotiating a standalone FTA so this really has little bearing on that.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:25 pm Anyway, back on track. Theresa May is now going to vote against the deal she negotiated alongside Dominic Raab and David Davis, who will also be voting against the deal they negotiated. It'll be interesting to see the queue of foreign entities desperate to do a deal with a country with such magnificent negotiating skills and commitment to the deals we agree.

Here's a list to start with (with thanks to Private Eye):

“Haunted Pencil”

What’s the chances of him fucking off back to his Secret Garden.

GG. wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:00 pm The DAG argument that this is in some way duplicitous and going back on an agreed deal is also silly

So we can have a second referendum then, without having to deal with Brexiteers screaming about it being undemocratic and negating the will of the people (not putting you in that category, just to be clear)?

Rich B wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:04 pm I was well into my 30s and had to have saved £30k+ cash to buy a £250k 2 bed house on a fairly shitty rate mortgage. I sold it 3 years later refurbed for £412k, which I wouldn’t have been able to afford to buy as a FTB.

It sounds like the North is catching up in the game of crazy house prices....

3 bed semi's in Solihull are £400k

That's 10 miles from Birmingham.

Nathan wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:12 pm

Rich B wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:04 pm I was well into my 30s and had to have saved £30k+ cash to buy a £250k 2 bed house on a fairly shitty rate mortgage. I sold it 3 years later refurbed for £412k, which I wouldn’t have been able to afford to buy as a FTB.

It sounds like the North is catching up in the game of crazy house prices....

3 bed semi's in Solihull are £400k

That's 10 miles from Birmingham.

Christ, fvck that. And I thought that much for one in Timperley (Altrincham) was getting daft.

Nathan wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 9:12 pm

Rich B wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:04 pm I was well into my 30s and had to have saved £30k+ cash to buy a £250k 2 bed house on a fairly shitty rate mortgage. I sold it 3 years later refurbed for £412k, which I wouldn’t have been able to afford to buy as a FTB.

It sounds like the North is catching up in the game of crazy house prices....

3 bed semi's in Solihull are £400k

That's 10 miles from Birmingham.

That’s a lot to live in a shit hole where you’ll get robbed on a weekly basis.

GG. wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:00 pm "Voting against the deal" is a bit of a silly mischaracterisation of today's votes to be honest. The vote on her deal was had in the first meaningful vote - she lost that and these are votes on amendments to what her next plan of action is given she cannot get her deal past the house in its current form.

The DAG argument that this is in some way duplicitous and going back on an agreed deal is also silly - that argument would then apply to any deal or treaty which failed to be ratified and had subsequently to be changed, which in the EU's case on FTAs is numerous and frequent. I'm also not sure anyone would think negotiating the withdrawal from a longstanding involvement in a bloc which is deeply enmeshed within our legal system, controls our borders, etc. etc. is even remotely like negotiating a standalone FTA so this really has little bearing on that.

May goes to the EU, negotiates a deal which she then goes back to the UK with, sees it rejected, votes against it herself when given the opportunity and now has a mandate to ask the EU for something which goes against her own red lines.

This is playing out in public, and we're an utter laughing stock. No other country can negotiate with her (or the UK) in future with any certainty that what we say will actually happen.

At least they were sensible to leave no deal on the table last night.

Jobbo wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 9:43 am

GG. wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:00 pm "Voting against the deal" is a bit of a silly mischaracterisation of today's votes to be honest. The vote on her deal was had in the first meaningful vote - she lost that and these are votes on amendments to what her next plan of action is given she cannot get her deal past the house in its current form.

The DAG argument that this is in some way duplicitous and going back on an agreed deal is also silly - that argument would then apply to any deal or treaty which failed to be ratified and had subsequently to be changed, which in the EU's case on FTAs is numerous and frequent. I'm also not sure anyone would think negotiating the withdrawal from a longstanding involvement in a bloc which is deeply enmeshed within our legal system, controls our borders, etc. etc. is even remotely like negotiating a standalone FTA so this really has little bearing on that.

May goes to the EU, negotiates a deal which she then goes back to the UK with, sees it rejected, votes against it herself when given the opportunity and now has a mandate to ask the EU for something which goes against her own red lines.

This is playing out in public, and we're an utter laughing stock. No other country can negotiate with her (or the UK) in future with any certainty that what we say will actually happen.

She didn't "vote against it herself" - that's bollocks I'm afraid. She voted for it on the meaningful vote - that vote rejected ratification by a massive margin and made clear that it wouldn't be accepted by parliament without changes. The voting yesterday was on her subsequent course of action to try and ensure it would be passed. It was emphatically not a vote on the ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement itself, which has already been had and has failed.

This argument that she should not "double-cross" the EU on an agreed deal inescapably means that your opinion is that she should just keep going back to the house with the same deal and trying to get it to pass. You're essentially advising Theresa May to be more like Theresa May rather than making any attempt to build a consensus around a deal! I don't understand that at all I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, no independent country will ever sign up to a treaty it cannot get out of without breaching international law, whatever the context. It is completely perverse to immediately bring about the conditions they are trying to avoid by turning their face against say, a 2 year exit clause from the backstop which gives them 2 years of transition and two years of backstop to sign up a deal and avoid dealing with the border issue. In reality they are refusing to offer this, not because it doesn't make sense - they are refusing because they know that others in the EU27 will want to reopen other issues and/or they will see it as a concession and resultingly will not be able to get it ratified by the EU27 and parliament.

Perversely, much like Varadkar, in outmanouvering May and baking into the agreement a silly position which would never in reality be agreed, they've made any sensible compromise look like capitulation. Any good lawyer would realise that you cannot, in real life, engineer out all possible risk from a deal. You have to build in mechanics which go as far as they can to allay such risk whilst remaining acceptable to both sides - this pragmatic principle seem to have completely bypassed them.

As previously discussed, GG, May should've built that consensus of what the country and parliament actually wants before even beginning to talk to the EU.

Yep - that would have been sensible. Particularly sensible given it is in effect a cross party issue with rebels on both sides so essentially she needed the Tories, DUP and Labour rebels on side... but at least her own party first would have been a good start.

So have they admitted it's all fucking bollocks and let it die away yet?

No. No idea why not.

JLv3.0 wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 10:58 am So have they admitted it's all fucking bollocks and let it die away yet?

It’s not bollocks, it’s the will of the people.

That vote, 2 years ago, reflects the view of everyone, then, now and for the rest of time, irrespective of new thoughts, facts, a new generation of voters coming of age and another dying of old age.

HARD BREXIT NOW

Etc

Impressive negotiating from Corbyn.

“No talks until no deal is off the table.”

...Option not removed...

“We are prepared to meet...”