This is Bound to End in Tears

[MrGongGong]

Thankfully mine's closer to 255v on a good day.

Thus ensuring certain death if you inadvertently "connect yourself" to the mains
I once did a "live wire" connection of a consumer unit (before the days of PME and isolation switches) and it was on a par with sitting in a tree with a chainsaw in terms of fear (but nothing close to the 1st horn solo at the end of the New World )

[Bryn]

BBC Parliament?

Have you looked at just how many live streams of the European Parliament's activities are available?

[Dave2002]

Thus ensuring certain death if you inadvertently "connect yourself" to the mains

I have done this occasionally - but I'm stlll alive. I didn't bother to measure the voltage at the time.

Not fun though, and definitely not recommended. I don't think it would make much difference between 255v and 220v if the connection was good.

[Lat-Literal]

The UK has settled a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU, all the things that it wants to have - but including the backstop on the Irish border which it doesn't.

But it now wants either an agreed end date for the backstop, or the right to end it unilaterally.

At which point, it will successfully have picked off all the cherries with none of the 'unacceptable' bits. It will then be in a position that no other Third Country has.

I don't agree. First, it is unclear to most people and it will be until at least tonight what the UK's position is on the WA. The Brady amendment seeks neither of the courses you mention but rather alternative arrangements to the backstop. That isn't quite what you mean when you say "the right to end it unilaterally". That refers to an angle on its ongoing existence.

Next, Colonel Richard Kemp, who headed the international terrorism team of the Joint Intelligence Organisation in the Cabinet Office, and was Chairman of the COBRA Intelligence Group and of the EU and NATO Intelligence Support Committee, and Lee Rotherham of the Veterans Associations, are among many who would not agree even with the removal of the backstop that all the cherries have been picked. There is a detailed technical and legal report from them should you wish to find it which argues that the WA would still leave in what amounts to a defence and security backstop which is not only a risk to Britain and NATO but the people of the EU countries too. They are clear that it could easily lead to war. The proposals for an EU military force which are now being pursued with additional speed come at a time when the Front National in France and Alternative for Deutschland and similar in many other countries are second or third in the polls. On current trends, it would be functioning just at the time those parties came to power. Consequently it is reckless in the extreme.

I don't recognise by choice the term Third Country as it is EU terminology. What I think is bitterly disappointing is the entire absence in the so-called negotiations of an acknowledging of Britain's primary role in ensuring that there was liberty in Europe after 1945 and by virtue of that fact any scope at all for countries to decide whether they wanted to be in a European political organisation or more independent. The lack of appreciation for that role - as much in the tone as in the content - appals me. And it is, in my humble opinion, additionally dangerous at a time when we have seen from a poll undertaken by Jewish organisations that shockingly high numbers of people underestimate the extent of the holocaust or deny it ever happened or have never heard about it. Everything should have been done to ensure a smooth transition rather than to make it difficult. But what we get is the hard nosed strategy of the EU as a proxy for amoral global finance. Mr Barnier's techniques have been far closer to the business ethics of Jacob Rees-Mogg than either are to the UK Government.

Meanwhile, Stella Creasy, Debbie Abrahams and Caroline Lucas who were all friends of the late Jo Cox are proposing a Citizens Assembly. This would select in a round two - as opposed to the genuinely random selection for juries - a number of people to sit and take decisions on where we are now. This, they say, would not be binding on Parliament and nor would it, obviously in their view, suggest that Parliament should be ultimately replaced. What it would do, however, is force some unfortunates who have never sought to be in the public eye to be there and in a position in which their lives would be in danger from precisely the same sort of individual who murdered the MP. These MPs and their Parliamentary colleagues would, in effect, be let off the hook for taking the decisions they want to take should such a CA come down on their side. If that isn't cowardly, I don't know what is. If chosen, I would refuse.

[MrGongGong]

I don't recognise by choice the term Third Country as it is EU terminology. What I think is bitterly disappointing is the entire absence in the so-called negotiations of an acknowledging of Britain's primary role in ensuring that there was liberty in Europe after 1945 and by virtue of that fact any scope at all for countries to decide whether they wanted to be in a European political organisation or more independent. The lack of appreciation for that role - as much in the tone as in the content - appals me..

The UK's "sense of entitlement" apparently knows no bounds

YES, we will be a "third country" (lower case) because the UK has apparently decided to trample all over the garden that we have been working on.
If you piss people off and complain about everything all the time you end up in a group of one.

I don't see what huge objections people have to the EU having a shared "miltary force" anyway, far better to be that than crazy snake handlers from the other side of a rather large ocean.

[french frank]

I don't agree. First, it is unclear to most people and it will be until at least tonight what the UK's position is on the WA.

True.To the irritation of the EU, after two years+ the UK still doesn't have a position

What I think is bitterly disappointing is the entire absence in the so-called negotiations of an acknowledging of Britain's primary role in ensuring that there was liberty in Europe after 1945 [ … ]

I think some perspectives offer different views:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-47009852

I really, really think you are assigning to M. Barnier a role he does not have. He has been given his instructions by the Council of Ministers (elected politicians), to further a strategy that has been agreed among all the 27 member states.

[Dave2002]

I don't agree. First, it is unclear to most people and it will be until at least tonight what the UK's position is on the WA. The Brady amendment seeks neither of the courses you mention but rather alternative arrangements to the backstop. That isn't quite what you mean when you say "the right to end it unilaterally". That refers to an angle on its ongoing existence.

I agree with this statement, with the proviso that I don't think things will become much clearer tonight either. I am currently watching BBC Parliament, and it looks as though "we're" not guaranteed to a have a coherent view to take back to the EU, unless by some - possibly mischance - the cons manage to push through Mrs M's deal. I suppose if that happens, then at least procedures will have been followed, even if the country as a whole suffers simply in order to (possibly) keep the cons together for a while longer.

I'm not against Parliament deciding what it thinks the UK should do, and then carrying out Brexit if that is the decision, but simply to suit the cons does not seem a good way forward.

I think there are a few more muddy waters to paddle through before we get to that stage.

[Lat-Literal]

True.To the irritation of the EU, after two years+ the UK still doesn't have a position

I think some perspectives offer different views:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-47009852

I really, really think you are assigning to M. Barnier a role he does not have. He has been given his instructions by the Council of Ministers (elected politicians), to further a strategy that has been agreed among all the 27 member states.

On your second, he hardly has the credentials of Colonel Kemp. The key words which led to a contradiction in what he was saying are "in the end". We were largely on our own at the outset and having any outset was fundamental. Nevertheless, I have consistently talked up the Russian contribution, not least because few others do and prefer to criticise Russia. At least Simon Reeve in his programme demonstrated the Russian position on WW2 very well. The ultimate failure of the National Socialists was a repeat of the failure of Napoleon in that it came from having to fight on two flanks. This, actually, is the position the EU is placing us in today with Brussels on one side and Dublin on the other. But the key difference, other than it isn't quite military, is the ones doing the flanking this time are the territorial expansionists. That doesn't encourage clarity or success. But the UK may have a position "in the end".

Sorry Lats I have to disagree with you there - it is Britain's fault that the issue has arisen in the first place.

The UK's "sense of entitlement" apparently knows no bounds

YES, we will be a "third country" (lower case) because the UK has apparently decided to trample all over the garden that we have been working on.
If you piss people off and complain about everything all the time you end up in a group of one.

I don't see what huge objections people have to the EU having a shared "miltary force" anyway, far better to be that than crazy snake handlers from the other side of a rather large ocean.

You mention a garden. Two next door neighbours recognise a line on deeds that denotes the boundary between their gardens. Neighbour A declares that he isn't intending to erect a fence. Neighbour B says that he wants a legal agreement to ensure that Neighbour A will not erect a fence. Neighbour A says this is unnecessary. He has said that he will not erect a fence. Subsequently, Neighbour B declares that he will have to erect a fence himself and says that this is Neighbour A's fault for not entering into an agreement as asked. So Neighbour B's position shifts from being so adamant about not wanting a fence that he demands a legal agreement preventing it to putting up a fence anyway and blaming Neighbour A for his own actions. The illogicality and fickleness of Neighbour B are breathtaking to the point of being indicative of instability. And yet it is precisely this sort of thing we are coping with now.

As for President Trump, he can only serve a maximum of two terms. When the EU military is completed so far as it can be, the US President will probably be a latino woman aged 38.

[Lat-Literal]

If anyone wants to follow the goings on in the European Parliament, all they have to do is Google "European Parliament televised". Would that the UK's parliamentary activity was so widely covered.

Have you looked at just how many live streams of the European Parliament's activities are available?

Sorry for the delay in coming back to you on these points. I accept this. I wasn't aware of the audio-visual material which is, as you say, comprehensive. But given the sort of interest I take in these things - I watch BBC Parliament quite a lot - the percentage of people who are similarly unaware must be in the upper nineties. That is not the fault of the EU. The media and IT sites from which most people obtain their news present what is happening precisely as I first outlined. Farage vs the rest who are there and many empty seats, otherwise it's all Juncker, Barnier and Tusk plus Merkel, Macron and May. More could be done in schools. Huge amounts more could be done by MEPs, mainly anonymous, in the way of communication. The outcome of the referendum could have been different with a bit of extra effort. Even now, ie on Brexit, UK MEP voices are, astonishingly, largely absent from the nation's airwaves. And I have never, ever heard Andrew Adonis or Anna Soubry or Ian Blackford or Vince Cable saying that they must be heard to assist in putting the case forward for EU membership.

I agree with this statement, with the proviso that I don't think things will become much clearer tonight either. I am currently watching BBC Parliament, and it looks as though "we're" not guaranteed to a have a coherent view to take back to the EU, unless by some - possibly mischance - the cons manage to push through Mrs M's deal. I suppose if that happens, then at least procedures will have been followed, even if the country as a whole suffers simply in order to (possibly) keep the cons together for a while longer.

I'm not against Parliament deciding what it thinks the UK should do, and then carrying out Brexit if that is the decision, but simply to suit the cons does not seem a good way forward.

I think there are a few more muddy waters to paddle through before we get to that stage.

And I agree that (a) it probably won't be much clearer by the end of tonight and (b) what it is - and has been for two years from my perspective - is a process. I am finding it difficult to follow today. Haven't got to grips at all with the Malthouse thing which was only presented to the public this morning. But it looks mainly like an alternative kicking into the long grass.

Oh - just this minute announced - ERG to support Brady amendment : a bit of a surprise!!

[Dave2002]

I haven't fully digested all the amendments, the details of which are listed here https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nt-brexit-bill

I wonder what would happen if more than one amendment succeeds, and those amendments contain contradictory or conflicting elemnents, which seems perfectly possible to me.

Ah well - Amendment A vote coming up now ...... Noes have it.

[oddoneout]

You mention a garden. Two next door neighbours recognise a line on deeds that denotes the boundary between their gardens. Neighbour A declares that he isn't intending to erect a fence. Neighbour B says that he wants a legal agreement to ensure that Neighbour A will not erect a fence. Neighbour A says this is unnecessary. He has said that he will not erect a fence. Subsequently, Neighbour B declares that he will have to erect a fence himself and says that this is Neighbour A's fault for not entering into an agreement as asked. So Neighbour B's position shifts from being so adamant about not wanting a fence that he demands a legal agreement preventing it to putting up a fence anyway and blaming Neighbour A for his own actions. The illogicality and fickleness of Neighbour B are breathtaking to the point of being indicative of instability. And yet it is precisely this sort of thing we are coping with now.

But it isn't just Neighbour A and Neighbour B - there's the Residents Association too, of which neighbour B is still a member and to which he still has responsibilities.

[MrGongGong]

But it isn't just Neighbour A and Neighbour B - there's the Residents Association too, of which neighbour B is still a member and to which he still has responsibilities.

Not forgetting that one of these "neighbours" has gone next door and trampled all over the overwintering broad beans.

[Lat-Literal]

I haven't fully digested all the amendments, the details of which are listed here https://www.theguardian.com/politics...nt-brexit-bill

I wonder what would happen if more than one amendment succeeds, and those amendments contain contradictory or conflicting elemnents, which seems perfectly possible to me.

Ah well - Amendment A vote coming up now ...... Noes have it.

Well, arguably that was what happened. Or it did if you take the line of Sir Vince Cable that the passing of the Brady amendment will lead to no change in EU and would subsequently lead towards no deal when it is placed alongside the passing of the non binding Spelman/Dromey amendment opposing no deal. Obviously the Conservatives and the DUP seemed more united tonight, agreeing as they did on the Brady amendment. The Spelman/Dromey result had the impact of enabling Labour to enter into discussions with the Government to whatever effect, if any. But from an external negotiating perspective, I don't think it is especially helpful because it suggests to the EU no deal can't happen, enabling it to remain inflexible.

But we saw from the curt statement which Mr Tusk put out immediately afterwards that he wasn't intending to shift anyway. Mr Juncker had already said that at midday. What is striking is that Parliament has now been through more votes than anyone can remember in recent months via what might generously be called weeks and weeks of a process. The EU "process" at times like these is for no votes whatsoever to be had within the EU and for just two men to decide the formal response on behalf of 27 countries with tweets in a matter of seconds.

As for no deal and the border, I had missed that on Wednesday the third man, Mr Barnier had said that no deal wouldn't mean that the EU would need a hard border. That contradicts the statements in the same week from Mr Varadkar that it would need a border in the event of no deal and that Irish troops and police would be on it. One of them, therefore, must be lying. It also contradicts Mr Barnier's own comments in February 2018 that a hard border would be needed by the EU in the event of no deal so either he was lying then or he is lying now. It is a pity because it proves that he can't be trusted. But the most notable moment of the session came when it turned out that a member of Sinn Fein had taken up his seat in Parliament after all. It was just that he wasn't Irish and was there under a different political banner. Pray for the people of Northern Ireland. They will be less safe in their beds tonight.

Not forgetting that one of these "neighbours" has gone next door and trampled all over the over wintering broad beans.

I don't understand how walking out of something - which is what Brexit is - could be interpreted as walking all over something. It seems like the strangest of distortions to me but I am open to hearing a decent explanation if one can be provided. I disagree too on your earlier comment that you can't have an effective border that is not treated as a border. That is exactly a description of the effective Northern Ireland border today. In contrast, the Northern Ireland border before the Good Friday Agreement was treated like a border and ineffective.

[Dave2002]

But we saw from the curt statement which Mr Tusk put out immediately afterwards that he wasn't intending to shift anyway. Mr Juncker had already said that at midday. What is striking is that Parliament has now been through more votes than anyone can remember in recent months via what might generously be called weeks and weeks of a process. The EU "process" at times like these is for no votes whatsoever to be had within the EU and for just two men to decide the formal response on behalf of 27 countries with tweets in a matter of seconds.

The trouble with this is (a) that the title at the head of this thread might be going to come to pass, and (b) the EU seems to be behaving in a completely unthinking way, so deserves to let us go - and we it. I am rapidly moving away from any support I might have had for it. I think our procedures are messy, and there are clearly many disparate opinions in the UK, but at least the parliamentary discussions show a fair degree of thought, which seems completely missing from the EU side. That's a real shame.

[Lat-Literal]

The trouble with this is (a) that the title at the head of this thread might be going to come to pass, and (b) the EU seems to be behaving in a completely unthinking way, so deserves to let us go - and we it. I am rapidly moving away from any support I might have had for it. I think our procedures are messy, and there are clearly many disparate opinions in the UK, but at least the parliamentary discussions show a fair degree of thought, which seems completely missing from the EU side. That's a real shame.

That sounds fair to me but for the sake of balance I guess I am not suggesting there won't at least be consultation within the EU in the days to come. I am not a fan of this Parliament - Mr GG speaks of teenage views among the public but these MPs have, as a matter of fact, been the most rebellious in Parliamentary history : doing their job well or just unusually adolescent, take your pick - but what I would say is that we are now well used to the scenes. A lot of them turning out looking frazzled from the sheer amount of stresses involved. In comparison, the EU can seem ever so carefree to the extent of being inappropriately so. In the media follow up tonight, the person who impressed me most was Caroline Flint MP who said that she was delighted her party, Labour, would now enter into talks to help shore up workers rights and environmental protections. Here she was, a couple of years ago, on TV:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnKflDgNRbo