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

[Bearbehind]

This will be interesting to watch!

@ysteryTripAgain - even breaking it down, you still haven't answered it.

Are you happy that your government has acted

A simple yes or no. I assume you are being disingenuous rather than struggling to understand the question, but just in case, I will clarify. I am asking you how you feel about your governments actions. Are you happy about them?

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

Just as an aside, NI only backstop was the original plan. Given all your cut and pasting, I would have thought you knew that.

and continues to act

Again, the question is about your feelings. I am not asking what the options are.

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"

Yes, WA will not be revisited while the current UK red lines remain in place. If Johnson rows back on the red lines, negotiations would certainly take place.

Remember it take two parties to conduct negotiations.

The only ones not attempting to come up with a solution right now is the UK.

So again I ask: 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 GF?

@why

T May was swayed by DUP and ERG when the NI only backstop became a UK wide backstop. Some might say that she should have ignored. However, the Miller case prevents Government by themselves agreeing WA. So even if T May had ignored DUP and ERG they still had the opportunity to vote against the WA IN HoC.

Yes, WA will not be revisited while the current UK red lines remain in place. If Johnson rows back on the red lines, negotiations would certainly take place

That overlooks that any revised WA will still have to go through parliament and get past the DUP and ERG.

Reality is that Parliament is the final word as opposed to the PM and Government. Like people sating Trump can agree what he wishes, but it still has to go through Congress.

@MysteryTripAgain That overlooks that any revised WA will still have to go through parliament and get past the DUP and ERG.

No it doesn't. The incompetence of the British parliament is outside the control of the EU.

You still haven't answered: 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 GF?

@why

The incompetence of the British parliament is outside the control of the EU

and the UK voters too until a general election has been held.

Maybe you have not yet heard, but Gina Miller's attempt to prevent Johnson from closing parliament next week has failed.

@MysteryTripAgain - and the UK voters too until a general election has been held.

All the more reason for you to answer the question with a 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?

@why

Current government wants a GE. I think that would be a fair thing to do as if people have changed their minds they can choose pro leave or remain parties as they wish. So what current government is doing is correct. Parliament are talking about blocking a GE.

As for GFA it is up to the EU to agree continuous extensions to Article 50 otherwise UK is forced out of EU without a deal regardless of any law passed in the UK. Johnson then gets what he wants by being able to blame the EU.

Will EU agree to a permanent extensions without a valid reason such as GE or second referendum? Both, as per Parliament, are off the table. So what reason will EU use to extend Article 50?

@MysteryTripAgain - Parliament are talking about blocking a GE.

My understanding is parliament is blocking a GE until no deal legislation has passed. This is a sensible approach if they want to avid no deal. I expect a GE will be agreed once that happens , which would then facilitate an extension.

As for GFA it is up to the EU to agree continuous extensions to Article 50 otherwise UK is forced out of EU without a deal regardless of any law passed in the UK.

That is nonsense. The UK is not forced out of the EU without a deal. They are choosing to do so. Any movement on red lines by the UK will result in an extension.

You still haven't answered: 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?

expect a GE will be agreed once that happens , which would then facilitate an extension

GE are based on constituencies. This favors a coalition of Brexit party and the conservative party. 406 constituencies voted leave in 2016. A majority of that magnitude could overturn any previously passed law.

UK law does not create obligations for the EU. So whilst UK may be prevented from instigating a no deal it does not oblige EU to extend Article 50 permanently.

If UK requests an extension and EU refuses then UK leaves with no deal.

Recent poll shows that people are more afraid of corbyn being PM than a no deal brexit. So I don't rate labor chances

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-49609677

BJ isn’t getting his way - no support for a snap GE until after the summit. No one trusts him!

GE are based on constituencies. This favors a coalition of Brexit party and the conservative party.

I would ask you again on your opinion on the democracy of this system but you have already shown you don't understand what democracy means.

A majority of that magnitude could overturn any previously passed law.

Yes, it could. And to be honest, if your electorate is so ill-informed they are willing to vote for non deal, then maybe they deserve it. A caveat here that I know many, many people do not support no deal. They do not deserve this. We still have the CTA so come on over and join us.

Recent poll shows that people are more afraid of corbyn being PM than a no deal brexit. So I don't rate labor chances

That is so sad. Are people really so ill-informed about the negative impact of a no deal brexit? At least Corbyn could be voted out again relatively quickly.

You still haven't answered: 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?

I would ask you again on your opinion on the democracy of this system but you have already shown you don't understand what democracy means

Even a % basis, brexit party and conservative party combination is almost 50%

Yes, it could. And to be honest, if your electorate is so ill-informed they are willing to vote for non deal, then maybe they deserve it. A caveat here that I know many, many people do not support no deal. They do not deserve this. We still have the CTA so come on over and join us

Keeping no deal on the table is to prevent giving the EU an open cheque book. No deal is better than a bad deal has been said by many. I agree. However, what is a bad deal and what is not is subjective.

That is so sad. Are people really so ill-informed about the negative impact of a no deal brexit? At least Corbyn could be voted out again relatively quickly

View is that Corbyn is a communist due to his support of Cuba and North Korea, etc. 5 years of Corbyn would do more economic damage than a no deal brexit could ever do.

@MysteryTripAgain - a no deal exit will destroy the UK for a generation or more. Thankfully it’s looking unlikely that this disaster is going to happen.

@MysteryTripAgain - Keeping no deal on the table is to prevent giving the EU an open cheque book. No deal is better than a bad deal has been said by many. I agree. However, what is a bad deal and what is not is subjective.

We might be starting to get an answer to my question then.Is it therefore reasonable to assume you are 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?

5 years of Corbyn would do more economic damage than a no deal brexit could ever do.

I very much doubt it given members of your own government have stated it will take 50 years for the (unarticulated) benefits of brexit to be seen.

"I very much doubt it given members of your own government have stated it will take 50 years for the (unarticulated) benefits of brexit to be seen*

Slightly misquoted. What Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg said was that it could take up to 50 years for the UK to realize the full benefit of leaving the EU.

Regardless. The general perception is that Corbyn is unfit to lead.

There are no benefits in leaving the EU regardless of who is the MP.

There are no benefits in leaving the EU regardless of who is the MP

So why did EU employ and pay people for 7 years between 2002 and 2009 to develop Article 50 if it was assumed that nobody would ever want to leave?

Surely it is not the intent of the EU to prevent members from leaving after they joined? Thats not harmonization, it's entrapment

EU members can leave if they want but seeing the disaster it is for the UK, I imagine they will put and reap the benefits whereas if the UK eventually leaves it faces disasters like lack of frictionless trade and free movement.

Surely it is not the intent of the EU to prevent members from leaving after they joined? Thats not harmonization, it's entrapment

The only barriers to the UK leaving the EU are a lack of integrity, ineptitude, intransigence and belligerence. All of that is on the UK side.

The only barriers to the UK leaving the EU are a lack of integrity, ineptitude, intransigence and belligerence. All of that is on the UK side

ARTICLE 50 does not require the leaving member to say why they want to leave. Nor is there a caveat that members can't leave if it is disadvantageous to any of the other members.

@MysteryTripAgain - ARTICLE 50 does not require the leaving member to say why they want to leave. Nor is there a caveat that members can't leave if it is disadvantageous to any of the other members.

Of course not. But a country with any integrity will not wilfully take a position that will result in an international peace treaty to which they are party being broken, particularly when they can achieve their goal in a way that doesn't threaten the treaty.

Thankfully the EU and Ireland are displaying integrity and doing their best to ensure the treaty is not broken. Unfortunately they don't have any unicorns to give the EU.

when they can achieve their goal in a way that doesn't threaten the treaty

But can they? Without a general election there will be no change to the MPs who took part in the three votes on the WA. A general election might result in the DUP being removed from the picture, but not the ERG I think.

So the NI only backstop or special economic zone, which I support, may still not get through even if Johnson puts it on the table.

He will do sweet FA. As the guy in Morley said. Why are you here you should be negotiating? He's prancing round the country acting like Just William!

Even a % basis, brexit party and conservative party combination is almost 50%

Latest YouGov poll puts con/bxp on around 41%, lab/libdem are similar, then of course you have the SNP, predicted to wipe out the tories in Scotland.

Both Bxp and LDs problem is turning their support into MPs and here the LDs with a far better activist base will do better, ukip despite 3.8m votes got not a single MP in 2015.

The WD agreement cannot be re-opened, it would mean many EU states wanting a better deal for themselves, Gibraltar and fishing rights spring to mind, we'd have another 2 or 3 years of uncertainty.

The WA agreement cannot be re-opened

So how do you get the NI only backstop or NI special economic zone on the table? Those options seem to be the only way to leave and avoid border issues at the same time.

Polls show %, but not seats. That is where the Brexit Party will score. In 2016 leave vote was 52%, but in terms of constituencies it is estimated to be 406-410 seats. That is a big majority that could overturn any previous law that has been passed.

I think a GE would result in a coalition between Brexit Party and Conservative. Polls show that more people fear Corbyn as PM than they fear a no deal brexit.

In 2017 GE LibDems received 8 times more voted than DUP, but only won 12 seats compared to DUP's 10 seats.

You don't !!! NI border in the sea etc are pie in the sky, you cannot separate out a part of the UK, its a ridiculous suggestion.

The referendum wasn't decided on a constituency basis, many who voted will not vote again, GE's don't normally get such a high turn-out and other issues will also figure in voter concerns.
A recent survey showed brexit was no3 , behind money worries and NHS.
Party loyalty too, many people will vote con or lab come what may.

Any con/bxp pact, will mean a no deal tory manifesto, many tories, inc current ministers, will not support that at all.

BJ is an arrogant fool, who i feel has put to much trust in his advisors, some of whom have no experience of Westminster.