WTF does Brexit have to do with blood donations?!
Traffic jams.
I’m sure that now, with the backstop truly rejected, the EU will very quickly agree to something else. :D
A Brexiter replies. All is fine. We are pounding the EU.
I’ve got to say, this whole inability to negotiate something that’s mutually agreeable must be making an awesome impression on the people the UK will next want to make trade deals with.
To be fair today’s votes made it clear the problem is the backstop (despite claims by EU diplomats to the contrary after the last WA vote). So we should be able to make deals that don’t involve Ireland!
Thinking about this tonight this is yet another instance of the two sides not understanding each other. From the EU’s perspective the idea that NI being part of the EU was utterly critical (which maybe it was, I’m not saying this is necessarily wrong) to the peace process plays into the EU-as-peacebringer founding mythos, and so it becomes a moral imperative to maintain that state of affairs. From the UK side anyone with sympathy towards unionism in general (although not the DUP in specific) sees a deal that almost every unionist denounces and thinks that would be disastrous to the peace process, so it becomes a moral imperative to oppose it.
Certainly the Westminster tendency to try and ignore NI whenever possible has been hugely unhelpful.
That’s nonsense. The EU agreed to give all states the right to withdraw.
UK made deals to enter the EU and then reneged. How long until they renege on the deals they’re making (or not making yet) now?
Except that you already agreed to the backstop, and now you’re reneging on that deal. Why should anyone trust you as a negotiating partner?
Have to share this.
checks notes A few hours ago.
If those deals involve going against what was promised to Ireland, then the EU would be stupid to consider them. You do not majorly piss off a member of the Union for the sake of a third country.
Anyway, the EU already said they’re not going to renegotiate, let’s see how solid that commitment is
Failing to ratify a treaty is not “reneging on a deal”, as you well know.
The government accepting and backing a hostile amendment which rewrites the deal is, though.
Of course it is. It may be the right choice, depending on the deal, but agreeing to a deal and then backing out of it is reneging.
It would be if they could pass the deal. I think we all know they can’t.
I have no idea what you’re responding to. Maybe you should read my post more carefully?
I certainly don’t expect the EU to change their stance on the backstop, I don’t know what gave you the idea that I did.
So we should be able to make deals that don’t involve Ireland!
The EU promised Ireland that it wouldn’t make deals without assuring an open border in NI, so, deals that don’t involve Ireland are still deals that go against what was promised to Ireland.
Clear enough?
Let me quote this all for you since you apparently can’t track a simple conversation.
Note that at this point I am responding to your point and talking about “the people the UK will next want to make trade deals with”
Suddenly you are talking about the EU deal again. Do you have any idea how frustrating dealing with this kind of behaviour, intentional or not, is? I mean obviously I am not talking about the deal with the EU, because any deal with the EU involves Ireland because Ireland is part of the EU.
Tory PMs really need to read Rogers. Though probably they already have, and have decided that they surely know better. Or alternatively, don’t really care, and just want a no deal.
The EU isn’t going to renegotiate the backstop. Why should it? You don’t fold when you’re holding all the aces.
Ah, got it, I thought your not involving Ireland line was about a EU deal not directly related to Ireland.
But sure, other deals the UK might agree with non EU entities will be easier in that they’ll lack the Ireland problem, but the UK is probably the country where any new trade deal will be politicized the most, compared to EU membership, etc. They’ll all be difficult.