The DUP torpedo Brexiteer climbdown by saying they would rather delay Brexit for a YEAR

Daily Mail ^ | 26 March 2019 | Martin Robinson

[Cronos]

Theresa May's hopes of a miraculous win on her deal suffered a heavy blow today as the DUP signalled it would rather accept a one year Brexit delay than ever vote for it.

The Northern Irish party's Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson said the Prime Minister's deal was a 'prison' for the UK locked by a key held by EU negotiator Michel Barnier.

The intervention is devastating to Mrs May's bleak hopes of getting her EU divorce through Parliament. Downing Street had a glimmer of hope this morning when Brexiteer ringleader Jacob Rees-Mogg and other Eurosceptics signalled they are ready to U-turn and support the PM.

But if the DUP refuse to endorse the deal at the 11th hour Mrs May's chances of winning 75 more votes at the third attempt than she managed on March 12 appear to be shrinking fast.

[Cronos]

No deal Brexit - bring it back on the cards

[rintintin]

I’m no expert, but I get the impression DUP is a far more principled party than the Conservatives. DUP is explicitly pro life, e.g.

[Cronos]

you are 100% correct. the DUP have outlined their principles (unionism, pro-life etc.) and stick to it. That is to be admired

[goldstategop]

The chance UK will crash out of the EU April 12 have risen sharply.

[Cronos]

I think that Brexit will be bad for UK, but I think that they MUST have a no-deal Brexit. Anything else will lead to too much of animosity. The Leavers must get full Brexit, not Theresa’s deal and definitely no BreCancelation

[SteveH]

Brexit deadlock as MPs take control of process from Theresa May

Rob Picheta, CNN
Updated less than 1 min ago12:52 p.m. ET, March 26, 2019
CNN

https://edition.cnn.com/uk/live-news/brexit-latest-26-march-gbr-intl/index.html

[FLT-bird]

I think Brexit - that is real Brexit - ie no deal Brexit will be great for the U.K. Any “deal” under which the U.K. would not be completely sovereign, free to negotiate trade deals with others, subject to The diktats of Brussels, pay any amount of money to leave, or require a permission slip from Brussels in order to actually leave must be rejected out of hand.

[SteveH]

Tory rebels asked by No 10 if they would back Brexit deal if May quit

dan sabbagh
may 26, 2019
the guardian (uk)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/26/tory-rebels-asked-by-no-10-if-they-would-back-brexit-deal-if-theresa-may-quit

[SteveH]

European rather than UK stocks would suffer more in a no-deal Brexit, fund manager says

MAR 26 2019 • 10:50 AM EDT
Chloe Taylor
CNBC

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/26/european-stocks-would-suffer-in-a-no-deal-brexit-fund-manager-says.html

[Cronos]

He makes a good argument. European stocks have rebounded to September 2018 levels while the price falls in British stocks have been factored in already - well mostly.

This doesn't negate the opposite effect on the real economy

[Cronos]

No response to that! They’re probably infighting over who then gets the top job. Sheesh, politicians...

[Cronos]

The UK is not "paying money to leave" -- this is not "for the right to exit" -- the money is for due club fees.

Think of the EU as a club -- and let's take a historical diversion:

• in the 1950s there were 2 clubs in Europe:
  1. the EEC (France, Germany, Italy, Benelux) that explicitly stated their aim was closer political union
  2. EFTA (UK, Sweden, Iceland, Norway) etc. who wanted just a customs union
• But by the 70s the EEC was going great guns economically and the UK's economy was in the doldrums
• So the UK decided to abandon the EFTA and join the "ever closer political union" the EEC
• The UK politicians sold it as a "customs union" when that was false
• The club had and has fees

Now as to the fees - e the UK has ongoing commitments. And whether the UK has paid so much into the European Project is a different matter

the UK government has financial obligations to the EU. These include the agreement to make budget contributions until 2020 and paying pensions for retired UK staff who used to work at the EU (such as Nigel Farage). The UK government will also have to pay the relocation costs of moving EU agencies from their UK locations to an EU country.

what the UK paid into the EU in past bought it benefits that it took advantage of at the time, like access to trade via the single market, and EU funding for UK infrastructure projects. The “divorce bill” is for stuff that the UK previously pledged to pay for, some of which the UK will continue to benefit from even after Brexit.

[SteveH]

Scottish Parliament to vote for Brexit to be cancelled
BBC
March 26, 2019

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47707247

[FLT-bird]

CronosL The UK is not "paying money to leave" -- this is not "for the right to exit" -- the money is for due club fees. Think of the EU as a club -- and let's take a historical diversion: in the 1950s there were 2 clubs in Europe: the EEC (France, Germany, Italy, Benelux) that explicitly stated their aim was closer political union EFTA (UK, Sweden, Iceland, Norway) etc. who wanted just a customs union But by the 70s the EEC was going great guns economically and the UK's economy was in the doldrums So the UK decided to abandon the EFTA and join the "ever closer political union" the EEC The UK politicians sold it as a "customs union" when that was false The club had and has fees Now as to the fees - e the UK has ongoing commitments. And whether the UK has paid so much into the European Project is a different matter the UK government has financial obligations to the EU. These include the agreement to make budget contributions until 2020 and paying pensions for retired UK staff who used to work at the EU (such as Nigel Farage). The UK government will also have to pay the relocation costs of moving EU agencies from their UK locations to an EU country. what the UK paid into the EU in past bought it benefits that it took advantage of at the time, like access to trade via the single market, and EU funding for UK infrastructure projects. The “divorce bill” is for stuff that the UK previously pledged to pay for, some of which the UK will continue to benefit from even after Brexit.

This is completely laughable nonsense. Britain has been a net contributor.....one of the largest net contributors in fact. It does not owe anything to erstwhile members of a club to which it no longer belongs. The UK is not owed anything by the EU going forward.....feel free to cancel those pensions for former UK civil servants of the EU (the UK internally can decide to pay for those for its citizens or not or a portion to them but that is an internal decision) and the UK owes the EU nothing. This isn't divorce court where wifey gets to soak hubby for an outrageous amount of alimony. The UK owes the EU nothing and is perfectly within its rights to tell Brussels to get stuffed.

[Cronos]

You haven't refuted any of my points

The fact that the UK paid more in the past - just as France, Germany, the Netherlands did, does not mean they do not have to pay for the projects they agreed to as members.

They agreed or projects into 2020 and beyond and the bill for all of that is what they are due to pay - nothing more

Next, the UK IS owed completion of the projects for the UK such as for tyne and wear

This isn't a divorce court, but the fact that the UK made prior commitments as a member of the EU is what it needs to pay. That's it. you leave a club, you pay the amounts for the projects you promised to fulfill while as a member.

[Winniesboy]

Underlying your argument is an apparent assumption that the UK is negotiating with some kind of enemy: in which case walking away from your debts might seem a reasonable tactic. But if you’re negotiating with those whom you want to remain partners and allies, then dishonouring debts liable under a legal system which you recognise and to which you’ve hitherto been bound isn’t so clever.

[mewzilla]

The EU that just passed Articles 11 and 13 is an ally?

With allies like that, who need enemies.

[Cronos]

Err.. how are articles 11 and 13 directed against the UK?

Article 11, or what’s come to be known as the “link tax,” requires web platforms to obtain a license to link to or use snippets of news articles. This is intended to help news organizations gain some revenue from services like Google News that display a headline or a portion of an article that it suggests to readers. Article 13 requires a web platform to make their “best efforts” to obtain licenses to copyrighted material before it is uploaded to their platforms and changes the current standard of requiring platforms to simply comply with copyright takedown requests. The expectation is that platforms will have to use imperfect upload filters to deal with the flood of user-generated content, and the most draconian moderation practices will become the new normal. In both cases, critics argue that the directive is too vague and efforts to fix the issues are shortsighted.

While I am not quite certain what to think about these, it is definite that they are not attacks on the UK

[FLT-bird]

What you post are not proven points, they’re merely your opinions. Britain is not bound by ongoing projects and obligations in a club to which it no longer is a member of.

The reverse is also true. The EU owes Britain nothing for projects in the UK. It is up to the UK’s sovereign government to determine what it wants to do about those projects and to pay for them itself if it thinks those projects worth doing.

[FLT-bird]

Of course the exact opposite is also true. Trying to hold the UK’s feet to the fire with the harshest possible interpretation of credits and debits to be negotiated in the divorce settlement doesn’t auger well for the EU which will want a reasonable trade agreement with the UK. The EU after all runs a trade surplus with the UK. If that trade gets severely impacted, the EU has more to lose here.

Mrs. May’s fault lies in acting as though the UK is going to the EU as some kind of supplicant with cap in hand. That is not the case at all....