So Johnson has 30 days to come up with an alternative to the backstop......

[Bearbehind]

This will be interesting to watch!

@MysteryTripAgain - You are using the word blame. I use the word error. Blame or error does not change how EU and UK arrived at the current day.

No it doesn't. But the attempts by UK politicians and posters such as yourself to deflect blame (which is what you are doing, no matter how you word it) most definitely affects ongoing relationships.

Page 3 of 8 states that informal discussions can take place before the member issues formal notice of withdrawal, but this did not happen.

Informal discussions are very different to negotiations. The EU refused to negotiate until A50 was invoked as that was compliant with the rules.

When? Where? What was the outcome of the discussions? I can't find anything on the BIC website that would support that statement.

Then I suggest you look harder. Once it became apparent the UK were not taking their responsibilities seriously, it became an agenda item www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-to-dominate-the-agenda-at-the-british-irish-council-1.3691936

I didn't say there were discussions between them. I said it was discussed. There were many occasions when the Irish government expressed concern to the British government. In 2017 the UK government stated: The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North–South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. This is a very interesting academic article on the topic www.tandfonline.com/eprint/eJsbPvuFVxwcfvPXy7nw/full

In 2016, David Davis committed to avoiding a hard border.www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/01/brexit-secretary-no-return-to-hard-border-in-ireland

The repeated rhetoric from the UK side at the early stages suggested the GFA would be honoured.

Democratic when your vote is on the winning side and undemocratic when on the losing side.

If that is what you believe, then you have understanding of what democracy is. You might be better not referring to things as undemocratic until you understand what the term means.

If those multiple ways are put on the table an accepted by MPs then they will go through. If not accepted by MPs then either UK leaves EU without a deal or another extension is agreed.

Again, that does not answer the question: Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA?

then you have understanding of what democracy is

Should read: then you have no understanding of what democracy is

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/04/tory-peers-accused-wrecking-tactics-bill-delay-brexit

Now the Lords are threatening to stop the no deal - idiots!

@Parker231 - Now the Lords are threatening to stop the no deal - idiots!

The Charles Stewart Parnell approach to parliamentary debate.

Parnell adopted a tactic of obstructionism and disrupted proceedings using technical procedures in an effort to force MPs to pay more attention to Irish issues. Often this would involve lengthy speeches that were not relevant to the topic under debate.

Ironically Rees Mogg claimed yesterday's behaviour was the most unconstitutional use of the house since the days of Parnell. m.independent.ie/business/brexit/why-is-charles-stewart-parnell-trending-ghost-of-home-rule-leader-haunts-house-of-commons-in-brexit-debate-38464850.html

Brussels has said that up to €600 million could be made available to countries and sectors exceptionally hit by a no-deal departure.

www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0904/1073779-brexit-fund/

How many days has he left to come up with an alternative ?

If Mogg knew anything about political history he would know that Parnell's tactics were kids stuff compared to Tory opposition leader Bonar Law's attempts to block the Irish Home Rule bills, including open threats of civil insurrection.

@Wildorchidz - he was never given 30 days. It was a misrepresentation of what was actually said.

It doesn't matter anyway. He hasn't presented any suggestions to the EU so whether it's 30 days or 300 days, he's not going to come up with anything.

@MockersthefeMANist - I suspect it was carefully chosen. Using an Irish example plays into the rhetoric that the Irish are difficult and always have been.

...And Bonar Law, rabble-rousing firebrand, turned out to be the shortest-serving and shittiest of all 20th century PMs by some margin.

@MockersthefeMANist - I remember him from history class. He wasn't the same level of despicable as Cromwell, but he was certainly up there.

Wasn't the point about Parnell that he used constitutional means to be as obstructive as possible ?

Telling that Smug saw this as wrong

@prettybird - Wasn't the point about Parnell that he used constitutional means to be as obstructive as possible ?

Yes. He was by the book but he knew parts of the book nobody else knew existed.

The only reason I knew a wee bit about Parnell (not having studied him at my Scottish school ) was that it was suggested when the SNP used the Humble Address procedure in protest at having been shut out of the debate on removing devolved powers () that they should follow Parnell's example and make their presence in WM an obstructive, albeit legal, nightmare

No it doesn't

Correct.

But the attempts by UK politicians and posters such as yourself to deflect blame (which is what you are doing, no matter how you word it) most definitely affects ongoing relationships

What does allocation of blame, which seems to be your objective, achieve?

Informal discussions are very different to negotiations. The EU refused to negotiate until A50 was invoked as that was compliant with the rules

Article 50 reads:

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council

The key phrase is "in light of the guidelines. Page 3 of 8 of the Withdrawal Briefing notes states that discussions can take place before Article 50 is formally invoked. That could have been the feasibility study phase, but EU wanted UK to invoke Article 50 before anybody was allowed to say anything.

Then I suggest you look harder

The first link you have provided relates to an Article dated 9 Nov 2018, almost 9 years after Article 50 was passed. BIC not very quick off the mark were they? If you read the record of the Isle on Man meeting you will see that there is reference to; economy and trade, free movement, common travel area and ongoing relations with the EU. Nothing recorded about how UK's departure from the EU would impact the border. Varadkar was present at the meeting.

The second link refers to an article dated 13 Jan 2018, over 7 years after Article 50 was passed. The full Article is not available on the link and has to be purchased. Feel free to purchase and post a link.

The third article is dated 1 Sep 2016. It records:

“We are clear we do not want a hard border – no return to the past – and no unnecessary barriers to trade. What we will do is deliver a practical solution that will work in everyone’s interests, and I look forward to opening the conversation about how that should operate with my colleagues today.”

Correct. UK does not want a hard border. It is the EU that will insist on a border if UK leaves the EU without a deal. Two borders is my anticipation. UK installs a vague WTO border and ROI installs a border like those in existence in Eastern Europe.

The Article also records;

Denying Brexit would damage UK-Irish relations, Davis said: “We are already working with the Irish government and I firmly believe this process will take our relationship forwards not backwards

So even Davies records that denying Brexit is bad for relations.

The repeated rhetoric from the UK side at the early stages suggested the GFA would be honoured

Well chosen words by yourself. Suggested, yes. Guaranteed, no. Now you are thinking like a legal person.

Early stages assumed agreement could be reached, but so far has not. Article 50 acknowledges that no agreement may occur.

If that is what you believe, then you have understanding of what democracy is. You might be better not referring to things as undemocratic until you understand what the term means

Losers always cry; undemocratic, the other side cheated, it is not fair, let's do it again, etc.

Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA

The Miller case took power away from government and spread it more thinly over parliament. Had it not been for the Miller case the WA signed by T May might have gone through?

EU has stated they will not re-visit the existing WA. If so how is it possible to place on the table ideas such as; Norway plus, NI only backstop or NI special economic zone.

Parliament has rejected the suggestion for a General Election. Yet remain supporters argue that the people should be allowed to speak again. Sounds like remain don't know what they want either?

Remain are trying to get law passed that prevents no deal before a general election as a safeguard if they lose the election. Remain also tried to get prorogation ruled out, but Judge decided that prorogation was not illegal.

@MysteryTripAgain - What does allocation of blame, which seems to be your objective, achieve?

My objective is not to allocate blame but to deflect the attempts to claim the EU and Ireland are obstructing efforts to achieve brexit.

The first link you have provided relates to an Article dated 9 Nov 2018, almost 9 years after Article 50 was passed. BIC not very quick off the mark were they?

As I have repeatedly stated - the UK claimed protection of the GFA was a priority for them. The Irish erroneously assumed the UK would act with integrity in this matter so it did not appear as an issue until the UK went back on their word.

Well chosen words by yourself. Suggested, yes. Guaranteed, no. Now you are thinking like a legal person.

Again, an assumption of integrity was made.

Losers always cry; undemocratic, the other side cheated, it is not fair, let's do it again, etc.

That's absolute horseshit. There have been many elections and referendums in Ireland where I have disagreed with the result. However, they were all democratic. You stated you believe the UK system is undemocratic when you don't get what you want but democratic when you get what you want. Are you rowing back on that now?

Again, you have not answered the question: Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA?

At least in Ireland, they have an official body which oversees Referendums and ensures that at least officially false and misleading information is not disseminated and that any figures or statements used are factually accurate . If a country is going to use referendums as a proxy for governing (not that I'm suggesting that Ireland does ; but in the UK's case it was ), then that is the proper and sensible safeguard to put in place.

That is not the case in the UK The Electoral Commission can (and did ) find that illegal activities happened (note the past tense), spending limited were breached and it has been acknowledged that lies were spread (the ONS censured Vote Leave for using misleading statistics and undermining the public's confidence in official statistics, but they continued to use them ).

But the Electoral Commission was further hampered by the fact the Referendum was advisory only: if it had been statutory (as the Indyref was), there would have been proper safeguards.

@prettybird

Has been said before. Cameron wound his neck out and said referendum was a once in a lifetime event (silly statements as means future generations are locked out of having a say) and the result would be honoured. Reason was that he was convinced leave had no chance.

Referendum started out as advisory, but became statutory the moment parliament invoked Article 50. As most of parliament are pro remain you would have though they would have jumped at the chance to disqualify the result of the referendum if there was evidence of foul play by either side.

Why did they not do that? Answer is the seat system of elections in the UK. 52% voted leave, but in terms of constituencies 63% voted leave.

So 77% of MP's voted to invoke Article 50 in March 2017 in fear that if they did not they would be ousted by their constituencies at the next general election. Then they would face the horror of have to work for a living (had to get that one in ).

Cons and Lab both stood on manifestos that said they would honour the referendum result. They had to say that as they knew they would lose a massive amount of votes to UKIP.

Election held in June 2017 and both Cons and Labs retained their 1st and 2nd positions with 42% and 40% of the vote. UKIP came nowhere as people did not need to vote for them as both major parties had committed to leave the EU.

Turn the clock forward to May 2019 and it was a different story. Brexit party topped the EU elections and both Cons and Lab slumped as voters moved to Brexit Party and LibDems.

Now it gets worse. Labour who have squealed for a General Election since the previous election in 2017, no longer want an election! One of the previous meaningful votes took a further referendum off the table.

So all the talk of let the people speak again was twaddle. No referendum and no General Election.

If law is passed in UK that prevents no deal, the EU negotiators will think all their Christmases and Birthdays have happened at the same time. Whatever EU demands UK has to accept. Yikes.

Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA?

If law is passed that prevents UK from leaving the EU without a deal this question vanishes.

However, here goes;

As JRM has pointed out to James O'Brien, the Government is her Majesty's as opposed to that of individuals.

Various leave options were talked about during the campaign, but never seemed to be debated or had meaningful votes in parliament on which was the most preferred version of leave. Conservative party, at a conference, took it upon themselves to decide what the leave voters wanted from leave. Considering there were 17.4 million leave votes how did the Conservative Party establish what was the most preferred leave version?

Outcome was establishment of the Red Lines without seeking any input from the others parties or the member states, NI, Scotland and Wales. Piss poor leadership and T May boxed herself into a corner even before negotiations with the EU started.

T May agreed WA without passing it through parliament which goes against UK law as established by the Miller case. She even tried to conceal the legal advice that the wording of the WA enabled EU to lock the UK into the CU, SM and ECJ permanently.

So government, under T May, going off on their own personal crusade without involvement of other parties and member states is where the government has acted poorly.

If EU are not prepared to revisit the WA, how do you get the untested leave options that both achieves leave and safeguards the GFA on to the table?

DUP seem determined to make a bonfire of the GFA and ERG seem determined for a no deal which make also makes a bonfire of the GFA.

So even if you can present the untested options to the table, what prevents DUP and ERG scuppering them? Nothing is the answer to that as voters have no control over how MPs vote in HoC.

At least Boris still has a sense of humour - I just read this in the Daily Mail

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7432245/Boris-Johnson-praises-fantastic-brother-Jo-quits-government-Brexit.html

Not seeing any hint of a sense of humour in that article. I'm seeing an entitled selfish man who was an hour late for his appearance which led to one of the officers behind him collapsing after standing up so long. Oh what a buffoon, Boris, eh?

@MysteryTripAgain - I really think you should become a politician. You are excellent at answering a very simple question with long, irrelevant, pieces of drivel.

So, yes or no? Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA?

So, yes or no? Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA

The NI only backstop and NI special economic zones should have been presented to the EU during the WA negotiations.

@MysteryTripAgain - again, that is not an answer to the question.

So, yes or no? Are you happy that your government has acted, and continues to act, in a way that is likely to result in an international peace treaty being broken, particularly as there are multiple ways the UK could leave the EU, thus honouring the leave vote, whilst still complying with the GFA

@whyamidoingthis

Your question have several parts:

Are you happy that your government has acted

This is past tense. So reply is;

The NI only backstop and NI special economic zones should have been presented by T May to the EU during the WA negotiations

and continues to act

This is present tense. So the reply is;

EU has stated that WA can't be revisited. That means the errors made by T May can't be corrected by Johnson even if withdraws his statement "no backstop or no deal"

Remember it take two parties to conduct negotiations.