The EU has to check goods entering the EU, to check they conform with the regulations and standards that apply. That's always been the case, and thus any decision by the UK to put the country outside the customs union meant that those checks and associated paperwork would be essential. The UK government is at fault for creating all that extra paperwork and checks, and the costs to business that that creates, by deciding to leave the customs union when even the dubiously-informative 2016 vote didn't require that.
@Telford assuming you voted Leave (and forgive me for not noticing whether or not you have said so here), what did you think leaving the EU would deliver? In what ways did you think you would be or feel better off? Why was it preferable to the Remain option?
@Telford assuming you voted Leave (and forgive me for not noticing whether or not you have said so here), what did you think leaving the EU would deliver? In what ways did you think you would be or feel better off? Why was it preferable to the Remain option?
After much deliberation I voted leave in order to gain greater independence. I assumed that we would remain in the single market and custom union. When Remain was winning after the first few results I shrugged my shoulders and accepted it.
An open border in NI fucks the anti-migration agenda completely.
Wait, yes, so it does (the only slight wrinkle being that the RoI is not in Schengen so has control of its external borders other than the one with NI).
Unless there is also to be immigration control for everybody on any crossing from NI to the rest of the UK? I can't imagine Unionists in particular being very happy about needing a passport to visit the rest of the UK... anyone got any informative links on this particular aspect of the dogs' breakfast?
Either you have a border down the Irish Sea, break the Union quite fast, or you have uncontrolled immigration and potentially - should the U.K. raise standards above those of the EU (excuse me whilst I die laughing at that hypothetical) - you also potentially undercut your own industries with unregulated cheaper imports from the EU.
The Union issue could still torpedo the deal, but it’s unlikely.
After much deliberation I voted leave in order to gain greater independence. I assumed that we would remain in the single market and custom union.
Fair enough.
But this is why @Alan Cresswell keeps saying things like "the dubiously-informative 2016 vote". Leave promised that Britain could "take back control", which sounds like "gain greater independence" to me.
The fact is that "taking back control" inevitably means leaving the EU's Single Market, because that relies on the Four Freedoms, including freedom of movement across borders.
It also inevitably means leaving the EU's Customs Union, because being in a Customs Union means you can't do trade deals on the side with third countries.
So essentially, the Leave campaign offered no workable solution that would allow the UK to remain in the Single Market or Customs Union, and failed to make this clear*.
Similarly, seeking "greater independence" inevitably entails the UK carrying out border checks. How can it "take back control" if it doesn't know what junk it might have flooding its domestic market?
If you want a good summary (just over 5 minutes) of why the only two possible outcomes of voting Leave on the government's terms were the one we have or No Deal, I highly recommend this video. The commentary (but not the slide being commented on) is not 100% accurate, because it skips over the Free Trade Agreement that has been reached and (in 2019) predicts only a No Deal scenario, nevertheless it spells out what the implications of "greater independence" on the UK's terms really are. This is why Remainers keep saying the Leave campaign was based on lies.
==
*And as already stated it seems to me that the solution on the table comes at a cost of leaving NI out of the deal and pretty much with the status of an EEA member, which amounts to a tacit admission that the status quo wasn't really so bad, and, if values such as "sovereignty" and "control" and "independence" are so important, means they are basically being thrown under the bus, which does not strike me as very high moral ground.
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Don't blame me. Blame the EU
Let's get this straight. You want me to "blame the EU" for what you described just now as an "upside"?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
I don't require you to blame anyone
We don't want to do the checks. Only the EU want to do the checks
Thats because some Brits dont want to abide by international law.
Either you have a border down the Irish Sea, break the Union quite fast, or you have uncontrolled immigration and potentially - should the U.K. raise standards above those of the EU (excuse me whilst I die laughing at that hypothetical) - you also potentially undercut your own industries with unregulated cheaper imports from the EU.
Wait, can we tease out the immigration aspect from the goods aspect? There is a customs border down the Irish Sea; that's established, and I do indeed think it's the beginning of the end of the Union, more likely than for Scotland as the mechanisms are already provided for in the GFA. Is there an immigration border? I'm not sure.
What precisely do you mean by "uncontrolled immigration"? In the absence of immigration control at points of entry to the UK from NI, from within the EU to the UK via RoI, certainly, although whether there would be much traffic is perhaps an open question...?
However, for non-EU citizens outside the RoI, you still need to get to the RoI. You can't get there on a Schengen visa. That's not exactly the same as just popping over a land border in Eastern Europe, say.
[ETA I don't think the Union issue will torpedo the deal because realpolitik and American foreign policy noises on the GFA.]
If EU peeps go to Ireland - which they can cause EU - we don’t check who crosses the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, theoretically, any European citizen could cross into the U.K. to work illegally and we’d be none the wiser. Unless, we check if people arriving on the mainland are in fact British or on a tourist visa. So a border in the Irish sea, or no functioning immigration control.
Agreed. But as pointed out above, note that unlike the continental EU, the RoI does have border control with respect to the rest of the EU because it is not part of Schengen*. In the real world I'm not convinced there'll be a huge influx of, say, Romanians to mainland UK via the RoI and NI.
*EU citizens have the right to go there, and to NI, because of the Four Freedoms, but in practice there is a checkpoint which does not exist within the continental EU. Or no longer existed until Covid happened.
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Don't blame me. Blame the EU
Let's get this straight. You want me to "blame the EU" for what you described just now as an "upside"?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
I don't require you to blame anyone
We don't want to do the checks. Only the EU want to do the checks
Who is this 'we' ? I doubt that is universally true. Were checks stopped you'd have a bunch of different industrial sectors up in arms (quite apart from HMRC facing difficulties fulfilling their roles).
After much deliberation I voted leave in order to gain greater independence. I assumed that we would remain in the single market and custom union.
Fair enough.
But this is why @Alan Cresswell keeps saying things like "the dubiously-informative 2016 vote". Leave promised that Britain could "take back control", which sounds like "gain greater independence" to me.
The fact is that "taking back control" inevitably means leaving the EU's Single Market, because that relies on the Four Freedoms, including freedom of movement across borders.
It also inevitably means leaving the EU's Customs Union, because being in a Customs Union means you can't do trade deals on the side with third countries.
So essentially, the Leave campaign offered no workable solution that would allow the UK to remain in the Single Market or Customs Union, and failed to make this clear*.
Similarly, seeking "greater independence" inevitably entails the UK carrying out border checks. How can it "take back control" if it doesn't know what junk it might have flooding its domestic market?
If you want a good summary (just over 5 minutes) of why the only two possible outcomes of voting Leave on the government's terms were the one we have or No Deal, I highly recommend this video. The commentary (but not the slide being commented on) is not 100% accurate, because it skips over the Free Trade Agreement that has been reached and (in 2019) predicts only a No Deal scenario, nevertheless it spells out what the implications of "greater independence" on the UK's terms really are. This is why Remainers keep saying the Leave campaign was based on lies.
==
*And as already stated it seems to me that the solution on the table comes at a cost of leaving NI out of the deal and pretty much with the status of an EEA member, which amounts to a tacit admission that the status quo wasn't really so bad, and, if values such as "sovereignty" and "control" and "independence" are so important, means they are basically being thrown under the bus, which does not strike me as very high moral ground.
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
The upside is that a few people will get meaningful well paid jobs carrying out these checks
That's a great idea! Let's introduce more red tape all over the place and create as many additional layers of bureaucracy as we can to provide more meaningful well paid jobs!
Don't blame me. Blame the EU
Let's get this straight. You want me to "blame the EU" for what you described just now as an "upside"?
Also what @alienfromzog just said. Please explain how this state of affairs is the EU's fault.
I don't require you to blame anyone
We don't want to do the checks. Only the EU want to do the checks
Thats because some Brits dont want to abide by international law.
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
The Remain campaign may well have been complacent, but I think it's clear that the Leave campaign were deceptive. They didn't just rely on people making unfounded assumptions, they actively encouraged them - and deceived you.
You engaged in "much deliberation" but you apparently didn't really think about how the "greater independence" you sought might actually come about in real world terms, a point that Remain repeatedly warned about (all being described as "Project Fear" as I recall).
Don't want and will not are not the same
Can you explain how your expressed wish for "greater independence" does not inevitably lead to the UK having to implement its own border checks? Difficulty: as explained earlier, you cannot have "greater independence" and remain a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union.
In other words, if you "want" greater independence, to be consistent you should also "want" border controls.
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
The Remain campaign may well have been complacent, but I think it's clear that the Leave campaign were deceptive. They didn't just rely on people making unfounded assumptions, they actively encouraged them - and deceived you.
You engaged in "much deliberation" but you apparently didn't really think about how the "greater independence" you sought might actually come about in real world terms, a point that Remain repeatedly warned about (all being described as "Project Fear" as I recall).
Don't want and will not are not the same
Can you explain how your expressed wish for "greater independence" does not inevitably lead to the UK having to implement its own border checks? Difficulty: as explained earlier, you cannot have "greater independence" and remain a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union.
In other words, if you "want" greater independence, to be consistent you should also "want" border controls.
Oh for fuck's sake, have people learned NOTHING from the unholy mess while Theresa May was PM?
If you don't vote for the deal on the table, the deal that you want instead doesn't magically appear because the UK is only one party to the negotiation.
Good on the Labor leader for understanding this and intending to vote Yes. There's a couple of days left before No Deal happens by default. Those are the only 2 options.
And to everyone everywhere suggesting that abstaining or voting no are options because of some political message, I want to come and hit you with a very large and VERY heavy clue stick.
Oh for fuck's sake, have people learned NOTHING from the unholy mess while Theresa May was PM?
If you don't vote for the deal on the table, the deal that you want instead doesn't magically appear because the UK is only one party to the negotiation.
Good on the Labor leader for understanding this and intending to vote Yes. There's a couple of days left before No Deal happens by default. Those are the only 2 options.
And to everyone everywhere suggesting that abstaining or voting no are options because of some political message, I want to come and hit you with a very large and VERY heavy clue stick.
Good on the Labor leader for understanding this and intending to vote Yes. There's a couple of days left before No Deal happens by default. Those are the only 2 options.
At the rate they're going they'll need every second of that time. Starmer seems the only one in a senior position who understands the seriousness of the position.
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
The Remain campaign may well have been complacent, but I think it's clear that the Leave campaign were deceptive. They didn't just rely on people making unfounded assumptions, they actively encouraged them - and deceived you.
You engaged in "much deliberation" but you apparently didn't really think about how the "greater independence" you sought might actually come about in real world terms, a point that Remain repeatedly warned about (all being described as "Project Fear" as I recall).
Don't want and will not are not the same
Can you explain how your expressed wish for "greater independence" does not inevitably lead to the UK having to implement its own border checks? Difficulty: as explained earlier, you cannot have "greater independence" and remain a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union.
In other words, if you "want" greater independence, to be consistent you should also "want" border controls.
I do but not in the irsh sea.
But that is a logical impossibility. It's like wanting an extra leg or a car with square wheels. In the real world, the geography and history of the island of Ireland makes the Leave agenda impossible without such controls.
The only other place you could put border controls is at the NI/RoI border. This woud tear up the GFA, which would be far too high a political cost, is unacceptable to the Americans, whose influence the UK cannot afford to ignore as it seeks to broker trade deals with its new-found independence, likely to reignite armed conflict on the island of Ireland, and about as impractical as Trump's wall at the US/Mexico border.
In the real world, Leave could not deliver what it mendaciously and imprecisely promised, and you were deceived in assuming it could.
If I've followed the procedural motion in the Commons correctly, it looks like the vast majority of MPs will be abstaining as the Leader of the House has moved to re-start virtual participation in the debate but has not re-started virtual voting thus those MPs not able to get to London won't be able to vote.
Oh for fuck's sake, have people learned NOTHING from the unholy mess while Theresa May was PM?
If you don't vote for the deal on the table, the deal that you want instead doesn't magically appear because the UK is only one party to the negotiation.
Good on the Labor leader for understanding this and intending to vote Yes. There's a couple of days left before No Deal happens by default. Those are the only 2 options.
And to everyone everywhere suggesting that abstaining or voting no are options because of some political message, I want to come and hit you with a very large and VERY heavy clue stick.
I don't think many of us are under any illusion that there is any outcome possible at this point, other than no deal or the deal on the table.
Abstention would be an appropriate action for Labour, IMO, as either of the alternatives would be used as a stick to beat them with. Vote against and they're remainers who want to cancel Brexit and defy The Will Of The People.
Vote for the deal and they give cover for Johnson when people start to realise what a pup they've been sold. They also hand the SNP a propaganda coup - "Labour and the Tories dragged us out of the EU against our will." Scexit then becomes (even) more likely.
There is effectively zero chance of Johnson's deal being defeated by Tory and SNP votes alone.
If EU peeps go to Ireland - which they can cause EU - we don’t check who crosses the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, theoretically, any European citizen could cross into the U.K. to work illegally and we’d be none the wiser. Unless, we check if people arriving on the mainland are in fact British or on a tourist visa. So a border in the Irish sea, or no functioning immigration control.
AIUI, most illegal immigrants enter the country legally, and then overstay whatever permission they've got. IOW, controls at the border do relatively little to prevent illegal immigration.
There is effectively zero chance of Johnson's deal being defeated by Tory and SNP votes alone.
Can you lobby count / commit some poor saps to informally shadow and balance individuals in the erg.
That way you could get most individuals in the party clear from formally supporting a bad deal. While having some insurance against the worse option.
It runs the risk of looking and being ridiculous.
If EU peeps go to Ireland - which they can cause EU - we don’t check who crosses the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, theoretically, any European citizen could cross into the U.K. to work illegally and we’d be none the wiser. Unless, we check if people arriving on the mainland are in fact British or on a tourist visa. So a border in the Irish sea, or no functioning immigration control.
AIUI, most illegal immigrants enter the country legally, and then overstay whatever permission they've got. IOW, controls at the border do relatively little to prevent illegal immigration.
Indeed, and the most effective measures to control immigration (should one be daft enough to consider that something that needs to be controlled) is within national borders - such as crackdown on businesses who employ illegal immigrants (and, therefore are not following laws on tax and NI payments, and quite possibly other laws on health and safety, minimum wage etc). Even more effective is to address the inequalities between nations, the environmental degradation and other factors that increase poverty, which drives people to look for opportunities elsewhere. Border controls are political bandstanding, "build the wall" is a campaign slogan but not a practical policy.
And by and large, those being employed illegally will not know of their rights to a minimum wage, to sick and holiday leave, to safe premises and systems of work, the right to belong to a union - the list rolls on.
And to everyone everywhere suggesting that abstaining or voting no are options because of some political message, I want to come and hit you with a very large and VERY heavy clue stick.
The Tories have an 80 seat majority, and group most likely to rebel (the ERG) have pronounced themselves satisfied with the deal. There's no need to give the government a free stick to beat the opposition with in future.
In any case it appears this is one elephant trap that the opposition are very happy to walk into.
I feel that the message that we're abstaining but we'd definitely vote for it if it was in danger of not passing is a more complex one to sell.
I think with the passing of time, what one 'might' have done in parliament instead tends to fade in most people's memories (if it ever made an impression).
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
The Remain campaign may well have been complacent, but I think it's clear that the Leave campaign were deceptive. They didn't just rely on people making unfounded assumptions, they actively encouraged them - and deceived you.
You engaged in "much deliberation" but you apparently didn't really think about how the "greater independence" you sought might actually come about in real world terms, a point that Remain repeatedly warned about (all being described as "Project Fear" as I recall).
Don't want and will not are not the same
Can you explain how your expressed wish for "greater independence" does not inevitably lead to the UK having to implement its own border checks? Difficulty: as explained earlier, you cannot have "greater independence" and remain a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union.
In other words, if you "want" greater independence, to be consistent you should also "want" border controls.
I do but not in the irsh sea.
But that is a logical impossibility. It's like wanting an extra leg or a car with square wheels. In the real world, the geography and history of the island of Ireland makes the Leave agenda impossible without such controls.
The only other place you could put border controls is at the NI/RoI border. This woud tear up the GFA, which would be far too high a political cost, is unacceptable to the Americans, whose influence the UK cannot afford to ignore as it seeks to broker trade deals with its new-found independence, likely to reignite armed conflict on the island of Ireland, and about as impractical as Trump's wall at the US/Mexico border.
In the real world, Leave could not deliver what it mendaciously and imprecisely promised, and you were deceived in assuming it could.
I know all this. What I want and what is possible are not the same thing
Alas (as the PM would say), that's true for most of us!
No, he really wouldn't. And that is indeed the nub of the issue. He would declare all things possible to all people of this Great United Islands of Ours...
Each Labour MP needs today to make a short video (short enough for a news bulletin without editing) and take 'selfie' holding a sign saying who they are and that they do not support the 'deal' vote but it's slightly better than no deal and they weren't given a choice to save the country from Boris' stupid choices in negotiating the worst deal for Britain ever.
The selfies can be merged into one montage which can be displayed whenever the Tories try to include them in the blame for this destructive 'deal'.
Then I suggest that any MP especially those who were in favour of Leave but don't like this damaging 'deal' do likewise. Any MP with an informative selfie can write whether they supported Leave or Remain, so there will be unhappy Leavers as well asd disgusted Remainers.
DUP voted against. Nevertheless the Unionist reaction has been muted. There were a few angry letters in the Belfast Newsletter but you have to dig a bit more than you'd expect to find the ire. Maybe things will look different in 12 months but right now things seem calmer than I'd have expected.
Comments
Wait, yes, so it does (the only slight wrinkle being that the RoI is not in Schengen so has control of its external borders other than the one with NI).
Unless there is also to be immigration control for everybody on any crossing from NI to the rest of the UK? I can't imagine Unionists in particular being very happy about needing a passport to visit the rest of the UK... anyone got any informative links on this particular aspect of the dogs' breakfast?
The Union issue could still torpedo the deal, but it’s unlikely.
But this is why @Alan Cresswell keeps saying things like "the dubiously-informative 2016 vote". Leave promised that Britain could "take back control", which sounds like "gain greater independence" to me.
The fact is that "taking back control" inevitably means leaving the EU's Single Market, because that relies on the Four Freedoms, including freedom of movement across borders.
It also inevitably means leaving the EU's Customs Union, because being in a Customs Union means you can't do trade deals on the side with third countries.
So essentially, the Leave campaign offered no workable solution that would allow the UK to remain in the Single Market or Customs Union, and failed to make this clear*.
Similarly, seeking "greater independence" inevitably entails the UK carrying out border checks. How can it "take back control" if it doesn't know what junk it might have flooding its domestic market?
If you want a good summary (just over 5 minutes) of why the only two possible outcomes of voting Leave on the government's terms were the one we have or No Deal, I highly recommend this video. The commentary (but not the slide being commented on) is not 100% accurate, because it skips over the Free Trade Agreement that has been reached and (in 2019) predicts only a No Deal scenario, nevertheless it spells out what the implications of "greater independence" on the UK's terms really are. This is why Remainers keep saying the Leave campaign was based on lies.
==
*And as already stated it seems to me that the solution on the table comes at a cost of leaving NI out of the deal and pretty much with the status of an EEA member, which amounts to a tacit admission that the status quo wasn't really so bad, and, if values such as "sovereignty" and "control" and "independence" are so important, means they are basically being thrown under the bus, which does not strike me as very high moral ground.
Thats because some Brits dont want to abide by international law.
Wait, can we tease out the immigration aspect from the goods aspect? There is a customs border down the Irish Sea; that's established, and I do indeed think it's the beginning of the end of the Union, more likely than for Scotland as the mechanisms are already provided for in the GFA. Is there an immigration border? I'm not sure.
What precisely do you mean by "uncontrolled immigration"? In the absence of immigration control at points of entry to the UK from NI, from within the EU to the UK via RoI, certainly, although whether there would be much traffic is perhaps an open question...?
However, for non-EU citizens outside the RoI, you still need to get to the RoI. You can't get there on a Schengen visa. That's not exactly the same as just popping over a land border in Eastern Europe, say.
[ETA I don't think the Union issue will torpedo the deal because realpolitik and American foreign policy noises on the GFA.]
*EU citizens have the right to go there, and to NI, because of the Four Freedoms, but in practice there is a checkpoint which does not exist within the continental EU. Or no longer existed until Covid happened.
Who is this 'we' ? I doubt that is universally true. Were checks stopped you'd have a bunch of different industrial sectors up in arms (quite apart from HMRC facing difficulties fulfilling their roles).
You put a lot of blame of the Leave campaign but the Remain campaign was complacent and did not fight it's corner properly. They assumed that they would win.
Don't want and will not are not the same
You engaged in "much deliberation" but you apparently didn't really think about how the "greater independence" you sought might actually come about in real world terms, a point that Remain repeatedly warned about (all being described as "Project Fear" as I recall).
Can you explain how your expressed wish for "greater independence" does not inevitably lead to the UK having to implement its own border checks? Difficulty: as explained earlier, you cannot have "greater independence" and remain a member of the Single Market or the Customs Union.
In other words, if you "want" greater independence, to be consistent you should also "want" border controls.
I think you might be right. Depressing.
But as I've been saying for a while now, propaganda works.
OTOH, I think you might have written a great slogan for the REJOIN campaign...
Make Booze Cheap Again!!
AFZ
I do but not in the irsh sea.
If you don't vote for the deal on the table, the deal that you want instead doesn't magically appear because the UK is only one party to the negotiation.
Good on the Labor leader for understanding this and intending to vote Yes. There's a couple of days left before No Deal happens by default. Those are the only 2 options.
And to everyone everywhere suggesting that abstaining or voting no are options because of some political message, I want to come and hit you with a very large and VERY heavy clue stick.
Well said
At the rate they're going they'll need every second of that time. Starmer seems the only one in a senior position who understands the seriousness of the position.
But that is a logical impossibility. It's like wanting an extra leg or a car with square wheels. In the real world, the geography and history of the island of Ireland makes the Leave agenda impossible without such controls.
The only other place you could put border controls is at the NI/RoI border. This woud tear up the GFA, which would be far too high a political cost, is unacceptable to the Americans, whose influence the UK cannot afford to ignore as it seeks to broker trade deals with its new-found independence, likely to reignite armed conflict on the island of Ireland, and about as impractical as Trump's wall at the US/Mexico border.
In the real world, Leave could not deliver what it mendaciously and imprecisely promised, and you were deceived in assuming it could.
I don't think many of us are under any illusion that there is any outcome possible at this point, other than no deal or the deal on the table.
Abstention would be an appropriate action for Labour, IMO, as either of the alternatives would be used as a stick to beat them with. Vote against and they're remainers who want to cancel Brexit and defy The Will Of The People.
Vote for the deal and they give cover for Johnson when people start to realise what a pup they've been sold. They also hand the SNP a propaganda coup - "Labour and the Tories dragged us out of the EU against our will." Scexit then becomes (even) more likely.
There is effectively zero chance of Johnson's deal being defeated by Tory and SNP votes alone.
AIUI, most illegal immigrants enter the country legally, and then overstay whatever permission they've got. IOW, controls at the border do relatively little to prevent illegal immigration.
That way you could get most individuals in the party clear from formally supporting a bad deal. While having some insurance against the worse option.
It runs the risk of looking and being ridiculous.
The Tories have an 80 seat majority, and group most likely to rebel (the ERG) have pronounced themselves satisfied with the deal. There's no need to give the government a free stick to beat the opposition with in future.
In any case it appears this is one elephant trap that the opposition are very happy to walk into.
I think with the passing of time, what one 'might' have done in parliament instead tends to fade in most people's memories (if it ever made an impression).
I know all this. What I want and what is possible are not the same thing
No, he really wouldn't. And that is indeed the nub of the issue. He would declare all things possible to all people of this Great United Islands of Ours...
I agree that in La-La-Land, where he is King, all things (even Unicorns!) are possible.
I know.
But I felt it was too profound a point to miss.
(Where is my Unicorn, BTW?
So long, Johnny Foreigner, and thanks for all the fish.
AIUI, 36 Labour MPs abstained, and 1 voted against. No doubt more accurate figures (and names!) will appear in the Meeja in due course.
The selfies can be merged into one montage which can be displayed whenever the Tories try to include them in the blame for this destructive 'deal'.
Doesn't matter, by next year Labour will be characterised as a bunch of Remain lawyers who are soft on nonces.
I disagree. If things go wrong, the voters will blame the government, not the opposition.
If?
*When* is probably likely to be more accurate.