I've been saying that for years...MajGenl.Meade wrote:Beyond time to turn over the northern enclave to the noisy neighbours to the south. One Ireland - problem solved.
Let them and their mixed up gods sort it out.
I've been saying that for years...MajGenl.Meade wrote:Beyond time to turn over the northern enclave to the noisy neighbours to the south. One Ireland - problem solved.
And that 'weasel amendment' passed by a small majority (322 to 306) so it's now the substantive motion. It means that the final Brexit vote can only be taken once all the legislation is in place. It's possible this can all be done by 31 October; more likely it won't so BloJo would be forced to seek an extension.. . . weasel amendment that would force Johnson to seek yet another 3 month extension from the EU...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-50110601The PM must now ask the EU for an extension to that deadline after MPs backed an amendment aimed at ruling out a no-deal Brexit, by 322 votes to 306.
Mr Johnson has told EU Council President Donald Tusk that he will now send a letter seeking the delay.
Under the terms of the so-called Benn Act, passed last month by MPs, he has until 2300 BST on Saturday to send it.
Having spoken to Mr Johnson at 1915 BST, EU Council President Donald Tusk tweeted that he was "waiting for the letter".
An EU source said that once Mr Tusk received the letter, he would start consulting EU leaders on how to react - which may take a few days, BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming reported.
Mr Johnson has vowed to bring in legislation on Monday to implement the deal he struck with Brussels this week.
MPs could also be given another vote on the deal then, if Commons Speaker John Bercow allows it.
So Johnson has traded to allow some sort of customs check - hopefully tariff free - in exchange for freedom to deviate from EU standards. Johnson of course says that standards (for products and environmental) will be higher than EU but there is no guarantee. I think the differences are at the edges and not all that substantial but we'll see. The result of all the modeling is as follows:Theresa May aimed to achieve as frictionless trade as possible with the EU, despite leaving the EU customs
union and the single market. She agreed to have new customs arrangements with the EU, but also to stay
closely aligned with EU goods regulations to avoid the need for border checks—and for the UK to potentially
stay inside some of the EU’s agencies in heavily regulated sectors.
Mr Johnson has abandoned that aspiration. Instead, he will seek to negotiate tariff- and quota-free trade with
the EU. Even with such a free trade agreement in place, if the UK is not in the EU’s customs union, there will be
customs checks at the border, goods will have to satisfy rules of origin requirements to qualify for tariff-free
entry, and trade will be subject to the threat of anti-dumping duties and countervailing measures.
Under Mr Johnson’s proposals, Great Britain will be outside the single market and will have the opportunity
to diverge from EU regulations, while Northern Ireland will remain bound by a greater number of EU rules.
However, there will be new checks to ensure goods comply with the EU’s standards, and businesses may face
extra costs if they need to split production lines for different markets.
AndThe trade impacts of our modelling exercise are shown in the table below. Relative to staying in the EU,
income per capita in the UK would be 2.5% lower under Mr Johnson’s proposals, compared to 1.7% under Mrs
May’s deal and 3.3% in the WTO [= no deal] scenario.
Certainly according to this analysis anyone who rejected May's deal and then votes for BloJo's needs his/her head examined.The model implies aggregate UK trade falls by 10% under Mrs May’s deal, by 13% for Mr
Johnson’s proposals and by 16% in the WTO case.
That sounds to me like an argument in favor of Trump: he's undeniably the result of the 'expressed will' of the votes according to the constitution.Per LJ: These folks have simply never accepted the expressed will of the voters since the day the results were announced, and have worked tirelessly ever since that day (with a huge assist from their like-minded allies in the mainstream news media) to undo the vote by any means necessary, no matter how undemocratic those means might be...
Well then Andy, I suggest you get your hearing checked, because it certainly isn't...That sounds to me like an argument in favor of Trump
That may well be, but that's pretty much par for the course in political campaigns...There is also no question but that they were lied to