Toebs wrote:bobscott wrote:Toebs wrote:
1. I may be wrong, but
This is just an observation, but it's becoming a bit like 'I have been perfectly clear'. Bob.
I may be wrong, but I think you mean to say that I say this quite a bit, and by being said often, it is without meaning. Those two things are not auxiomatically connected.
I am conscious that it is very hard to be correct, whatever correct means, and very easy to be wrong. This is generally true, and so a statement to that effect is normally needed. I could omit it, but then I begin to write that something *IS* so, when in fact, I do not think so, and I could be completely wrong.
When people tell us someting IS so, we find it slightly offensive. The example comment you give is of that nature and indeed is even worse, since it is not talking about a neutral matter, but asserting something about the listener themselves - *I* have it right, *you* are confused. It verges on arrogance.
To tell people however *you, the author, may be wrong*, surely is to verge on being modest, which seems in general to do no harm to others, and, I have found, by removing the faint pressure of arrogance, makes conversation less fraught and more open, because we all respond negatively to being *told* something is true.
Kilkis wrote:I think a key issue is how the indicative votes are carried out.
Whichever method is used these are still only indicative votes. You could end up with a preferred option being something that the EU would never agree to. The only two options that we are certain that they would agree to are May's deal and revoking Article 50 and they can't stop no-deal.
May could refuse to put a formal vote on the selected preferred option, although I think she would struggle to win a confidence vote if she did that.
Even if it is put forward to a formal vote it might not actually carry a majority. MPs might vote for option A as opposed to option B when they are deciding which is the better, or least worst, of two options but some might still not be prepared to vote option A into law. It sounds bizarre but in this parliament nothing would surprise me.
I could be wrong but if a majority decision is reached wouldn't the resulting Bill also have to be approved by the House of Lords? As far as I can tell they are very pro-remain.
scooby wrote:I thought it a bit “off “ that the EU suddenly announced that all their preparations for a no deal were completed very close when thought May’s deal would go back to the house, maybe I am being too sceptical.
However, it seems that they are not quite, they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem.
scooby wrote:...they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem...
But doesn't it still beg the question, who is going to put up a hard border? Answers on a postcard. If there was no deal and the UK don't do anything about a hard border then it is up to the EU to find a solution?Kilkis wrote:scooby wrote:...they are now in intense talks with Ireland about a soft border in case of no deal, something they said was unworkable in the negotiations? And that it was a UK problem...
I am not sure that they said it was unworkable. They said that a workable system didn't currently exist, which is true. In the Withdrawal Agreement there is a transitional period of 20 months during which the UK effectively stays in all the common market institutions, e.g. the customs union and the single market. Because of that the Irish border is not an issue during that period. After that the UK moves to a free trade deal system, details to be agreed, in which customs checks would be needed. In accepting that agreement the EU is conceding that a workable system can be implemented at some point. The backstop, of staying in the customs union for longer, was included because the EU weren't sure if a working system can be implemented in the 20 months. They are not saying it can't, just including contingency in case it can't. The ERG and the DUP are portraying it as locking the UK into the EU for ever.
The EU are highly pragmatic. They show far more empathy with the Irish border issue than most MPs do. The Republic of Ireland is part of the EU so they will do whatever they can to try to resolve the problem. At the same time they will not give up control of the EU border, part of which will be between Northern Ireland and the Republic. When they talked about trying to find solutions to the Irish border problem they also said that EU law must be respected. Funnily that doesn't seem to get the same attention.
Even if the EU decides to ignore the border for a period of time while a solution is found other countries might not. If the UK has left the EU with no deal on 12 May but effectively goods are moving between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, i.e. between the EU and the UK, with no tariffs and no customs checks every other member of WTO can demand that they have the same access to the UK market.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests