Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's interesting to note that with the chance of a Brexit deal rising those opponents of a No Deal are now beginning to show their true colours of being totally opposed to any deal.
Should Boris pull off an agreement AND keep the DUP onside it will be hell of a stroke.
And make the next end election very interesting.
It's interesting to note that with the chance of a Brexit deal rising those opponents of a No Deal are now beginning to show their true colours of being totally opposed to any deal.
Should Boris pull off an agreement AND keep the DUP onside it will be hell of a stroke.
And make the next end election very interesting.
Yes, most of the Labour Party front bench.
Having spent the past year telling us parliament holds primacy over any referendum, they're now frantically reversing and shouting at anyone who will listen that a second referendum must take precedence over any deal agreed by parliament.
It's why they're going to be destroyed in the next election.
Yes, most of the Labour Party front bench.
Having spent the past year telling us parliament holds primacy over any referendum, they're now frantically reversing and shouting at anyone who will listen that a second referendum must take precedence over any deal agreed by parliament.
It's why they're going to be destroyed in the next election.
Context is everything. When circumstances change........
BoJo just did a major U turn on the N.I. border issue. Goose/Gander etc.......
Context is everything. When circumstances change........
BoJo just did a major U turn on the N.I. border issue. Goose/Gander etc.......
Wouldn't that be possibly contextual?
If NI stays in the single market area for a fixed period or less depending on harmonization and trade agreements, then the U-Turn isn't a U-Turn. The issue with the NI backstop was it was indefinite pending regulation harmonization and trade agreement.
An indefinite period is way different to a fixed term. It also provides motivation to come to agreement prior to its expiry, rather than kicking it down the road because its inconvenient at no risk.
If NI stays in the single market area for a fixed period or less depending on harmonization and trade agreements, then the U-Turn isn't a U-Turn. The issue with the NI backstop was it was indefinite pending regulation harmonization and trade agreement.
An indefinite period is way different to a fixed term. It also provides motivation to come to agreement prior to its expiry, rather than kicking it down the road because its inconvenient at no risk.
Yes, in so far as BoJo changed the context with his U turn. Not sure I understand your point. Wouldn't "what" (exactly) be possibly contextual?"If" is not contextual, "if" is hypothetical.
Not sure, but I think the one party (DUP) veto is also gone.
Yes, in so far as BoJo changed the context with his U turn. Not sure I understand your point. Wouldn't "what" (exactly) be possibly contextual?"If" is not contextual, "if" is hypothetical.
Not sure, but I think the one party (DUP) veto is also gone.
The U-turn would not be a U-turn if NI remains part of the customs union for a fixed term or shorter. The primary contention of the backstop, was its indeterminacy. Therefore without the indeterminate nature of NI being in the customs union in the original EU agreement, the U-turn isn't a U-turn since it's an entirely different context.
I thought this was pretty obvious, since I was pointing out the U-turn claim depended on context, and as you said context is everything.
The U-turn would not be a U-turn if NI remains part of the customs union for a fixed term or shorter. The primary contention of the backstop, was its indeterminacy. Therefore without the indeterminate nature of NI being in the customs union in the original EU agreement, the U-turn isn't a U-turn since it's an entirely different context.
I thought this was pretty obvious, since I was pointing out the U-turn claim depended on context, and as you said context is everything.
I remind you again "if" is hypothetical. Neither Roscoe or me used the term. You introduced it. I disagree with your contention that the primary stumbling block for the backstop is it's indeterminacy. There are many points of contention, (see Politico quote) hard to say which has primacy, plus the Unionists are threatening to peel away.
From Politico:
Quote:
The microwave meal conundrum: The Guardian’s Jennifer Rankin captures the problem neatly in her own Twitter thread on last night’s briefing. What if, EU officials are asking, “chicken (chlorinated perhaps) is imported into NI and then made into ready meals that are sold in the EU market. In this case, how do you make [a] distinction between goods entitled to enter the EU market and those that are not?” Anyone have a solution to that one by October 31?
Without a clear exit strategy, "If" can be problematic,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
