Yes, I do know you are referring to me, but please get the context right.
I have said all along that if it were up to me I would have scrapped the entire WA and the only thing that would have been negotiated would have been the financial aspect of the divorce bill, and I have been very consistent in that message, it’s just you choose to ignore it as it doesn’t suit you’re narrative
But I do stand by what I said that the changes that were made to the WA are for the better to the UK.
But still unpalatable? As I recall, you also said the UK had a chance to scrap the whole thing after the GE. It didn’t.
My position on the WA as a whole has not changed, it’s something I would not even have tried to renegotiate as the are many aspects to it that are against UK interests. But that's easy for me to say i'm not the one in the hot seat.
As I recall it was you who 1st brought up the government had the choice to not ratified the WA after the GE and I agreed with you that they could have. But now you want to castigate Johnson for keeping his agreement with the EU
So, what’s the deal with all these prominent Brexiteers now demanding it be scrapped? How did this WA go from being acceptable a few months ago to unacceptable today?
Well that’s something you have to ask them. But from where I am sitting, they are acting in the UK interests bring up some of the more unappealing aspects of the WA which could changed in the FTA such as Geographical Indicators
We have been over the history before in regards to why we are at this point in the last thread no need to regurgitate it again.
But if the UK were to scrap the WA, I would be a very happy, but I know it’s not likely to happen.
We’re only here because prominent Brexiteers who previously supported the WA and celebrated it as proof positive that they could get the EU to make concessions, are now demanding that the WA be scrapped because the EU won’t budge.
Yes, it really is as silly as it sounds. Can’t blame remainers for pointing and laughing at Longworth’s indignation.
Well to be honest I had a chuckle as well
If you recall from the time from PM May’s resignation the EU held steadfastly that it would not reopen the WA as it believes an agreement had been reached between the EU & UK government at the time, even Jean-Claude Juncker also said the next Prime Minister will not be able to renegotiate Mrs May’s Brexit deal. but that position was never going to hold water as it did not comply with A50(1) under the TEU. And as the good Lord knows you cant show the EU in a bad light and do not want to look like the EU is not prepared to negotiate in good faith.
As I pointed out in an earlier post Johnson only had less than 3 months to renegotiate the WA under pressure from the Benn Act, and yes there was much joy that Johnson had removed the ominous and repressive yoke of the Irish Backstop. But as history shows the EU did in fact reopen the WA
You also point to the Chinese and HK and compare it, but I don’t see the UK making repressive laws towards those who protest about Brexit and gaol them do you?
I point to the fact that a lack of respect for an international treaty is causing not a little anger in the UK, but that hasn’t stopped Brexiteers from advocating breaking a different one.
Apples and oranges comparison many people oppose different treaties for different reason in countries all around the world, calling from breaking an agreement is actually different from government doing it, in which China is actually doing.
Rewriting history LOL she just leaves key events out of it.
I notice in it she fails to mention that Johnson had less than 3mths to renegotiate the WA he only became PM on 24 July 19( remember those assertions on this very forum that BJ would be the shortest serving PM in the history of the UK), all the while the EU steadfastly refused that they would reopen it, he also had a very pro remain speaker of the house as well as a majority pro remain Parliament and that he either renegotiate the WA by the 31 October 19 or face the Benn Act, the time frame was not his choice his only extension was the one forced on him by the Benn Act
The European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Benn Act) which was passed on the 4th September had left left Government at the mercy of Parliment on wether to accept a no deal exit in which we all know that that House would not have approved it and most likely lead to revoke A50
The renegotiated WA was agree on the 17th October19 , Johnson became PM on the 24th July. The surrender Act (Benn Act) really forced Johnson’s hand no one could have renegotiated a complete New WA in less than 3mths mission impossible
PM May started negotiations on 19 June 17 and signed off on her deal on the 14 November 2018 17mths
Maybe she should not talk about re-writing history when she does it herself
It is still patently absurd to hold anyone other than Johnson responsible for signing the WA deal. He could have walked away. He didn’t. Instead he - and many Brexiteers - treated it as a victory. As was his prerogative.
The evolving acceptability of the WA to Brexiteers is a function of their cognitive and/or intellectual capabilities, not a function of the actual WA or how it came into being.
I’m going to flog this dead horse some more: the circumstances surrounding how the WA came into being only mattered when the PM was considering putting pen to paper.
Once the UK committed pen to paper, all of those ordinary or extraordinary circumstances ceased to matter.
That decision to commit pen to paper was cheered by Brexiteers. Brexiteers own whatever follows. All of it.
Yes, it was a small victory but your overall premises are misleading. You want to leave out the role of a hostile Parliament that was piling on the pressure to Johnson Government to fail and further rise to their own political party ambitions to form government.
Johnson was more than clear that the entire WA was a bad deal for the UK and that Benn Act and the short time frame had forced him to pick and choose his battles and to prioritize what aspects within the WA that needed to change. Not much point to fighting GI’s if you are going to be stuck in CU/SM in perpetuity now is it.
Putting pen to paper as you put it after the GE also had implications. Johnson had two choices ratify the WA in its present form and try to fix the other defects within the WA through the FTA or no deal trade on WTO terms in the immediate future. It has always has been the position of the Johnson Government to get a fair and equitable FTA with the EU but on the provision if it could not then no deal is better than a bad deal.