Jump to content

UK Politics: Royal Weddings and Referendums


Yukle

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Jeor said:

Yes, I think May needs to make the bold move of choosing one side (which seems to be soft Brexit) and then daring the hard Brexiteers to topple her. If they do, they'll be left with the mess. Politically speaking, it would also force Labour to pick a side rather than be able to snipe from both ends.

In an ideal world, if the referendum could be done again, it probably should have been a choice between Remain and Hard Brexit. The Soft Brexit is essentially a worse deal than Remain and shouldn't have been seen to be an option. It allowed the Brexiteers to profit from a "have your cake and eat it too" line as they could cherrypick from the Soft and Hard Brexits depending on their audience.

I mean, we all know she's a softie, she was a bloody remainer. It feels a bit late, she needed to fuck off Boris way back. 

To be fair, there is logic behind the way the vote was done- any specific terms would have to be agreed with the EU. So we could vote for a Hard Brexit, but then the EU could be unreasonable when trying to negotiate those terms, and we'd be in a tricky situation (unlike our current, easy one). 

I actually thought the referendum should have been "shit or get off the pot"- join the Euro or Hard Brexit, none of this trying to have higher levels of government and law without common currency, it's a situation that will always cause tension. Of course, the Remainers would never have agreed to that, but it would have been interesting back when joining the Euro was actually backed by many, including the PM (never forget Gordon Brown kept us out the Euro. Whatever anyone thinks of him, that should be remembered). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Notone said:

 

Really? That expectation is based on what exactly? I hope it's not some misguided sense of British exceptionalism, that will lead the EU to bend over backwards to give the UK what it wants, just because... Anyway, the Whitepaper (the first real Brexit position of the British Goverment) was already dead on arrival as it was, JRM and his ERG managed to add amendments to it, that effectivley put it out of its misery. After that show of strength by the Moggles, how do you think May will be able to put together a palatable deal for the EU? Whether Labour would shoot down a deal is a rather academic question at this point Ithink.

 

Based on the fact that negotiations are ongoing, and they would not be ongoing if neither side wanted a deal.  Based on the fact that it's in the interests of both sides to have a deal.  That does not mean a deal is certain, but I think it's more likely than not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I mean, we all know she's a softie, she was a bloody remainer. It feels a bit late, she needed to fuck off Boris way back. 

To be fair, there is logic behind the way the vote was done- any specific terms would have to be agreed with the EU. So we could vote for a Hard Brexit, but then the EU could be unreasonable when trying to negotiate those terms, and we'd be in a tricky situation (unlike our current, easy one). 

I actually thought the referendum should have been "shit or get off the pot"- join the Euro or Hard Brexit, none of this trying to have higher levels of government and law without common currency, it's a situation that will always cause tension. Of course, the Remainers would never have agreed to that, but it would have been interesting back when joining the Euro was actually backed by many, including the PM (never forget Gordon Brown kept us out the Euro. Whatever anyone thinks of him, that should be remembered). 

If it was Leave, or Remain and join the Euro, leave would have won about 70% of the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

To be fair, there is logic behind the way the vote was done- any specific terms would have to be agreed with the EU. So we could vote for a Hard Brexit, but then the EU could be unreasonable when trying to negotiate those terms, and we'd be in a tricky situation (unlike our current, easy one). 

 

You know what hard Brexit means? The way you are phrasing it, suggest you really don't.

 

9 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

 I actually thought the referendum should have been "shit or get off the pot"- join the Euro or Hard Brexit, none of this trying to have higher levels of government and law without common currency, it's a situation that will always cause tension. Of course, the Remainers would never have agreed to that, but it would have been interesting back when joining the Euro was actually backed by many, including the PM (never forget Gordon Brown kept us out the Euro. Whatever anyone thinks of him, that should be remembered). 

What, like really, what? Let's break this one down in bits.

Quote

I actually thought the referendum should have been "shit or get off the pot"- join the Euro or Hard Brexit, none of this trying to have higher levels of government and law without common currency

No, usually it's the other way round, Common goverment and common laws should precede a common currency (actually one of the designing flaws of the Euro). And why would remainers propose a non-sensical position. Joining the Euro was not on the cards for the UK for a good while (the UK not being interested), and there are other EU countries not in the Eurozone (just look at Scandinavia). And you are reversing roles here, brexiteers promised all sort of contradictory things to different people. Was it Hannan or Raab who said nobody intends to leave the Single Market, while cutting immigration. Well, or the Brexit dividend to be spend on a bus advert.

I give you one thing, it should've been clear that it was either vote for status quo or leave the single market and customs union (and red tape being workers rights, and enviromental standards. But that's something Brexiteers always denied. Like I said, promising different things to different people, that often times contradicted each other. Whether the British public would've been on-board with leaving the EU, if the consequences of a hard Brexit were spelt out to them, and leaver's would've been honest (project reality and not project fear), that is a different question. Loss of single market access, disruption of the J-I-T supply chain, thus loss of manufacturing jobs depending on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Based on the fact that negotiations are ongoing, and they would not be ongoing if neither side wanted a deal.  Based on the fact that it's in the interests of both sides to have a deal.  That does not mean a deal is certain, but I think it's more likely than not.

It's in the interest of both sides, however a deal would mean the British side have to make an acceptable offer of some sort, thus far it has not. Or vice versa, the EU has to abandon its red lines, which it won't. And like I said above, May can't move enough to meet the EU standards of a satisfying deal (as ERG would shoot it down somewhat instantly). And it's not a negotiation on even terms, the EU has far more leverage than the UK, that much should've become obvious by now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Notone said:

It's in the interest of both sides, however a deal would mean the British side have to make an acceptable offer of some sort, thus far it has not. Or vice versa, the EU has to abandon its red lines, which it won't. And like I said above, May can't move enough to meet the EU standards of a satisfying deal (as ERG would shoot it down somewhat instantly). And it's not a negotiation on even terms, the EU has far more leverage than the UK, that much should've become obvious by now. 

If the parties cannot strike a satisfactory deal, then they will still have to negotiate as smooth a transition to WTO terms as possible.  

But, I expect that there will be further movement on both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If it was Leave, or Remain and join the Euro, leave would have won about 70% of the vote.

Of course, that's why it would never have happened. But under Blair? I don't think it ever reached that point, but it was at least plausible. Obviously people tend to try to downplay it now, but it really isn't long ago that a huge proportion of these people wanted to give up the pound.

38 minutes ago, Notone said:

You know what hard Brexit means? The way you are phrasing it, suggest you really don't.

No, usually it's the other way round, Common goverment and common laws should precede a common currency (actually one of the designing flaws of the Euro). And why would remainers propose a non-sensical position. Joining the Euro was not on the cards for the UK for a good while (the UK not being interested), and there are other EU countries not in the Eurozone (just look at Scandinavia).

And you are reversing roles here, brexiteers promised all sort of contradictory things to different people. Was it Hannan or Raab who said nobody intends to leave the Single Market, while cutting immigration. Well, or the Brexit dividend to be spend on a bus advert.

I give you one thing, it should've been clear that it was either vote for status quo or leave the single market and customs union (and red tape being workers rights, and enviromental standards. But that's something Brexiteers always denied. Like I said, promising different things to different people, that often times contradicted each other. Whether the British public would've been on-board with leaving the EU, if the consequences of a hard Brexit were spelt out to them, and leaver's would've been honest (project reality and not project fear), that is a different question. Loss of single market access, disruption of the J-I-T supply chain, thus loss of manufacturing jobs depending on it. 

Well I guess there's no fixed meaning, but it doesn't mean the same as a no deal Brexit, so I don't know what you mean.

Well they should come in at the same time, or at least with a view to that outcome. Half arseing it like we did doesn't make much sense, though it does fit with the British political tradition of moderation.  I don't know why you're pointing out there are other EU countries not in the Eurozone, I guess you're assuming I don't think it would be in the interest of other countries to leave the EU? If I was Swedish I'd probably be a eurosceptic too, I don't think the UK is special in this way. 

I'm not really interested in the "my side, your side" arguments, my position is pretty unusual, I've voted Lib Dem twice at recent elections, which puts me in a pretty tiny minority. 

That's certainly what the government propaganda we all got sent to us implied. 

The truth is, no one knew exactly how it would play out, on either side. Always beware the man who claims he knows the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

If the parties cannot strike a satisfactory deal, then they will still have to negotiate as smooth a transition to WTO terms as possible.  

So such smooth transition exists, because the UK's entire economy is rooted in its membership of the EU. Leaving the EU and trading under WTO rules leaves Britain permanently poorer than remaining in the EU.

This is what will happen if we Hard Brexit without a deal:

  • The morning after Brexit, border checks will be imposed all along the Irish border, at ferry ports and the Channel Tunnel. Whereas goods in the UK used to flow into Europe without a single check (and, despite this, delays and tailbacks at Dover and Calais were common), now they'll all have to be checked. There is also the matter of important licences, something Britain doesn't have to worry about now but will after Brexit. The EU issues 150 such licences a year to any country wanting to do business in the EU. There are roughly 11,500 trips across the English Channel related to trade, imports and exports per day. British companies will quickly be shelling out thousands of pounds per year to fund such trips, costs that will be passed onto consumers.
  • As a result of the above, costs will rise in the supermarket and in most retail outlets very quickly. Britain's only produces about half of the dairy products it consumes on a daily basis, so costs will rise to import the rest from the EU or will rise because British farmers will need to charge more because of the loss of their export markets in Europe and the loss of their seasonal staff (tariffs on dairy to and from the EU are over 70%, as well).
  • Tariffs will be imposed on a wide range of sectors. Industry and manufacturing will have to raise prices in the UK and abroad to make good the losses from the triple whammy of tariffs, problems getting the workers they need and the increased cost of haulage and imports.
  • The imposition of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland will be a material breach of the Good Friday Agreement. A new agreement will have to be negotiated between Northern Ireland, the Republic and the UK, which was difficult enough in the late 1990s even after 30 years of continuous bloodshed and the political will being there on all sides, but may be impossible now. The "treachery" of the imposition of the border may trigger a new wave of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland (we've seen recent isolated incidents resulting from the freezing of Stormont, but this could be considerably worse).
  • Britain moving to WTO rules with the EU would be matched by it having simultaneous WTO rules put in place for everwhere else, or every single other country that trades with Britain via the EU trade deals already in place (for example, we're about to enjoy seven months of more or less free trade with Japan that will abruptly end when Brexit cuts in).
  • Budget airline travel to Europe will abruptly cease. Moving to no deal means a £93 Standard Visitor Visa per person per trip will be required (fancy adding £372 to a trip for a family of four to Spain?) or a Registered Traveller Visa which costs £70 but lasts you a year: hooray! Except you have to remember to renew it every year and you will have to carry it with you everywhere or you can be deported.
  • Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland would be emboldened to strike for independence once more.

Hard Brexiting without a deal should not be even remotely on the table. It would destroy British industries, drive thousands of people out of work and would raise the cost of living for a populace already very much on the edge due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and the country for eight years. It would also post an existential threat to the continuation of the United Kingdom as we know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

So such smooth transition exists, because the UK's entire economy is rooted in its membership of the EU. Leaving the EU and trading under WTO rules leaves Britain permanently poorer than remaining in the EU.

This is what will happen if we Hard Brexit without a deal:

  • The morning after Brexit, border checks will be imposed all along the Irish border, at ferry ports and the Channel Tunnel. Whereas goods in the UK used to flow into Europe without a single check (and, despite this, delays and tailbacks at Dover and Calais were common), now they'll all have to be checked. There is also the matter of important licences, something Britain doesn't have to worry about now but will after Brexit. The EU issues 150 such licences a year to any country wanting to do business in the EU. There are roughly 11,500 trips across the English Channel related to trade, imports and exports per day. British companies will quickly be shelling out thousands of pounds per year to fund such trips, costs that will be passed onto consumers.
  • As a result of the above, costs will rise in the supermarket and in most retail outlets very quickly. Britain's only produces about half of the dairy products it consumes on a daily basis, so costs will rise to import the rest from the EU or will rise because British farmers will need to charge more because of the loss of their export markets in Europe and the loss of their seasonal staff (tariffs on dairy to and from the EU are over 70%, as well).
  • Tariffs will be imposed on a wide range of sectors. Industry and manufacturing will have to raise prices in the UK and abroad to make good the losses from the triple whammy of tariffs, problems getting the workers they need and the increased cost of haulage and imports.
  • The imposition of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland will be a material breach of the Good Friday Agreement. A new agreement will have to be negotiated between Northern Ireland, the Republic and the UK, which was difficult enough in the late 1990s even after 30 years of continuous bloodshed and the political will being there on all sides, but may be impossible now. The "treachery" of the imposition of the border may trigger a new wave of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland (we've seen recent isolated incidents resulting from the freezing of Stormont, but this could be considerably worse).
  • Britain moving to WTO rules with the EU would be matched by it having simultaneous WTO rules put in place for everwhere else, or every single other country that trades with Britain via the EU trade deals already in place (for example, we're about to enjoy seven months of more or less free trade with Japan that will abruptly end when Brexit cuts in).
  • Budget airline travel to Europe will abruptly cease. Moving to no deal means a £93 Standard Visitor Visa per person per trip will be required (fancy adding £372 to a trip for a family of four to Spain?) or a Registered Traveller Visa which costs £70 but lasts you a year: hooray! Except you have to remember to renew it every year and you will have to carry it with you everywhere or you can be deported.
  • Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland would be emboldened to strike for independence once more.

Hard Brexiting without a deal should not be even remotely on the table. It would destroy British industries, drive thousands of people out of work and would raise the cost of living for a populace already very much on the edge due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and the country for eight years. It would also post an existential threat to the continuation of the United Kingdom as we know it.

However, we can't compel our negotiating partners to strike a deal.  The fact that one does not want something to occur, does not mean that one should plan for it

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, SeanF said:

However, we can't compel our negotiating partners to strike a deal.  The fact that one does not want something to occur, does not mean that one should plan for it

I agree we should plan for it. A hard Brexit would be ruinous to this country, so if the choice is between a hard Brexit and no Brexit at all, we should plan for no Brexit at all, or an indefinite extension to Article 50 (the former option remains firmly on the table, according to the EU, the latter is less clear).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well they should come in at the same time, or at least with a view to that outcome. Half arseing it like we did doesn't make much sense, though it does fit with the British political tradition of moderation.  I don't know why you're pointing out there are other EU countries not in the Eurozone, I guess you're assuming I don't think it would be in the interest of other countries to leave the EU? If I was Swedish I'd probably be a eurosceptic too, I don't think the UK is special in this way. 

 

I felt the need to point that out, since you came up with a pretty non-sensical claim.

4 hours ago, mankytoes said:

join the Euro or Hard Brexit, none of this trying to have higher levels of government and law without common currency, it's a situation that will always cause tension. Of course, the Remainers would never have agreed to that,

The only half-way plausible explanation why you think remain should have campaigned on base to join the common currency was if you assumed there was some forced mechanism, which would force the UK to join the Eurozone. Otherwise it's either nonsense, or dishonest. Remain did not campaign on it, as there was no appetite for it, and there was nothing forcing the UK to join common currency. Fear of losing the pound is idelogically quite similar BoZo's claims of Turkey joining the EU in the neaer future, and the UK being unable to do anything about it (likesay vetoing it). Both is varying degree of xenophobic nonsense. The ugly unwashed muslims are coming to Britain, and the UK losing it's good pound sterling thanks to EU. Before you get off to write a rationalisation of why you are making a thoughtful point, no I am not actually interested in your rationalisation attempts.

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 I'm not really interested in the "my side, your side" arguments, my position is pretty unusual, I've voted Lib Dem twice at recent elections, which puts me in a pretty tiny minority. 

 

I don't really care about your voting pattern, tbh. But you are constantly making (or repeating) the right wing Tory talking points, be it Hunt or Fox, or whichever Tory europhobe has shared their latest pearls of wisdom.

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well I guess there's no fixed meaning, but it doesn't mean the same as a no deal Brexit, so I don't know what you mean.

 

No, but your past posts imply a lack of fundamental knowledge about the EU institutions, the EU single market (you are obviously not alone in that regard, and fortunately unlike the people I have in mind, you don't hold any office in the UK), or economics 101, and why manufacturers in the UK were acting up. So I am really not sure, you actually understand the difference between a Canada like deal and full EU membership. Disclaimer, with regards to the last point, I'd need to read it up myself. 

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

The truth is, no one knew exactly how it would play out, on either side. Always beware the man who claims he knows the future. 

We're exchanging quotes now, are we? How about this one. Nothing in all the worlds is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientous stupidity.

 

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

If the parties cannot strike a satisfactory deal, then they will still have to negotiate as smooth a transition to WTO terms as possible.  

 

I am with @Werthead (obviously) on this issue. Smooth is relative term, but I doubt there's any such thing. Unless you mean by smotth giving businesses enough time to get the hell out of Dodge in more or less orderly fashion.

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

or an indefinite extension to Article 50

Sorry to burst that bubble. And I know I said it on one of the previous pages already, but the EU is not really interested to have the UK sticking around in some legal limbo for all eternity. Most head of states I heard from, have been pretty clear in that regard for years. I really don't know where do you think the political goodwill for that should come from anyway. If it were a matter of 2-3 more years or so to work out some kinks, then I could see it happening. But that's as far as my imagination goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 8:01 PM, Werthead said:

Hard Brexiting without a deal should not be even remotely on the table. It would destroy British industries, drive thousands of people out of work and would raise the cost of living for a populace already very much on the edge due to Tory mismanagement of the economy and the country for eight years. It would also post an existential threat to the continuation of the United Kingdom as we know it.

And May walking back on her word regarding the backstop for the Irish border (credit where credit is due, a Hoey amendment also saw to that). Well, looks like the GFA has become obsolete in the Brexiter's mind. 

A very sober and somewhat depressing reading of that would be, that it minimizes the chances of a transition deal, as the Irish border was and is pretty much the key issue for the withdrawal agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 11:02 PM, Notone said:

The only half-way plausible explanation why you think remain should have campaigned on base to join the common currency was if you assumed there was some forced mechanism, which would force the UK to join the Eurozone. Otherwise it's either nonsense, or dishonest. Remain did not campaign on it, as there was no appetite for it, and there was nothing forcing the UK to join common currency. Fear of losing the pound is idelogically quite similar BoZo's claims of Turkey joining the EU in the neaer future, and the UK being unable to do anything about it (likesay vetoing it). Both is varying degree of xenophobic nonsense. The ugly unwashed muslims are coming to Britain, and the UK losing it's good pound sterling thanks to EU. Before you get off to write a rationalisation of why you are making a thoughtful point, no I am not actually interested in your rationalisation attempts.

We're exchanging quotes now, are we? How about this one. Nothing in all the worlds is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientous stupidity.

Maybe don't reply then? If you don't want to engage in debate with me, don't feel obliged. I think political and economic union should go together. If we are going to commit to a political union with Europe, we should commit to a combined currency. I don't think our former/current position is logical, and the aim of the EU has always been for ever closer union. Shit or get off the pot. If you're going to be a europhile, actually commit to it. I mean people keep talking about how strong the EU is, how much better they are than our government, so why aren't they advocating for the Euro?

No, I didn't quote anyone, that's an original thought. Who did you think I was quoting? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think political and economic union should go together. If we are going to commit to a political union with Europe, we should commit to a combined currency.

You may think that, but then you are a Brexiteer, so saying what Remainers should want smacks of strawmanning.

As a Remainer, my opinion is that the UK's pre-referendum position was already effectively the ultimate soft Brexit. The UK had used its leverage (that of potentially deciding to leave instead), to largely cherry pick which Euro institutions it wanted to join up to and which it didn't, and was able to significantly influence their direction. Ok, it didn't get to 100% choose everything, but we live in the real world.

In the unlikely event that the EU did actually decide to try to turn itself into a superstate in future, the UK would have been able to firstly vote against it, and secondly to Brexit then if all else failed.

Having voted for Brexit, the UK will now either end up in a catastrophic hard Brexit, or at best a soft Brexit that is going to be substantially worse that what it had already.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Maybe don't reply then? If you don't want to engage in debate with me, don't feel obliged. I think political and economic union should go together. If we are going to commit to a political union with Europe, we should commit to a combined currency. I don't think our former/current position is logical, and the aim of the EU has always been for ever closer union. Shit or get off the pot. If you're going to be a europhile, actually commit to it. I mean people keep talking about how strong the EU is, how much better they are than our government, so why aren't they advocating for the Euro?

No, I didn't quote anyone, that's an original thought. Who did you think I was quoting? 

Why does support for the EU apparently mean absolutely no criticisms of it whatsoever? It’s perfectly possible to both consider the EU a positive and criticise other aspects of it (I.e. the euro in this instance). Nobody here has suggested the EU is flawless. That YOU think we should commit to a combined currency if we stay in the EU is pretty irrelevant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Why does support for the EU apparently mean absolutely no criticisms of it whatsoever? It’s perfectly possible to both consider the EU a positive and criticise other aspects of it (I.e. the euro in this instance). Nobody here has suggested the EU is flawless. That YOU think we should commit to a combined currency if we stay in the EU is pretty irrelevant

Well how many criticisms of the EU by remainders can you point to on here? Most people used to criticise it, but now all the remainers defend it on every point, it does seem quite insincere. 

Well, it’s as relevant as anyone else’s opinion, and it used to be a popular opinion before people realised the inherent weakness of the Euro. Thanks, Greece!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well how many criticisms of the EU by remainders can you point to on here? Most people used to criticise it, but now all the remainers defend it on every point, it does seem quite insincere.

But we are not arguing as to whether the EU is flawless, we are arguing about Brexit, so shifting the argument in this way really does feel like strawmanning to me.

But if it makes you any happier, I for one am happy to say that the EU is far from flawless, and it was very much for the best that the UK stayed out of the Euro and out of Schengen. Despite this I think that Brexit is a huge mistake. Oh and the Westminster parliament is very far from flawless either.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's been said quite a lot actually, it's just a completely uncontroversial thing to say, so doesn't develop into a conversation about how the EU isn't perfect, but is better than the alternatives.

However, I'm not prepared to look back over the last dozen or so UKpolitics threads to gather evidence. I know for sure that I've said it a few times about various different aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A wilding said:

But we are not arguing as to whether the EU is flawless, we are arguing about Brexit, so shifting the argument in this way really does feel like strawmanning to me.

But if it makes you any happier, I for one am happy to say that the EU is far from flawless, and it was very much for the best that the UK stayed out of the Euro and out of Schengen. Despite this I think that Brexit is a huge mistake. Oh and the Westminster parliament is very far from flawless either.

 

That isn’t what strawmanning means. 

I agree, but unless you’re an anarchist, we need a national parliament (unless you just want to go full on federal Europe, and a good friend of mine does believe in that before you mention strawmanning again). We don’t need to add this additional label. I’m traditionally liberal enough to think you don’t add extra levels of government unless it’s necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2018 at 2:10 PM, A Horse Named Stranger said:

And May walking back on her word regarding the backstop for the Irish border (credit where credit is due, a Hoey amendment also saw to that). Well, looks like the GFA has become obsolete in the Brexiter's mind. 

A very sober and somewhat depressing reading of that would be, that it minimizes the chances of a transition deal, as the Irish border was and is pretty much the key issue for the withdrawal agreement.

Given that the Commons passed Hoey's amendment without a vote, the likelihood is that there is overwhelming opposition there to creating a border in the Irish Sea (to be fair, all parties say that they're trying to avoid this).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...