The problem of trust is an important one for both sides and between the attitude of the Tories and the behaviour of the EU I doubt either side could be trusted. However the key wording is "has open borders without further agreements". Nothing to stop the two sides looking at possible approaches to control such access except that the EU won't look at it. It might end up being impractical but without trying we will never know.
Yes if it is the GFA is dead but as I have said before the EU should have made that clear to the British people. Barnier and Tusk have repeated commented to the news media here, talking primarily about the BBC as that's been my primarily source of info. They have often made abusive remarks, insults and threats, along with a lot of lying but they have never actual said that if Britain leaves the EU they would certainly kill the GFA. If they had done that a lot of confusion would have been cleared up.
On the money given its record of deceit and continually changing its argument I don't trust the EU at all. However the Donald himself, [Tusk not Trump but they are similar in their behaviour] when he compared the EU to a drinking club said that Britain can't expect any benefits after they leave the club. Shock, horror, we're not. However the same applies in reverse. The EU can't expect to keep putting their drinks on our tab after we're left. There will be some exceptions for things such as pension responsibilities but in terms of general payment to the EU budget or things they want to do forget it!
Both sides have played fast and loose with the rules in Parliament. The suspension of Parliament was longer than before by a good measure although reasons were given. I.e. that Parliament had already sat for a very long time and that with the party conference season to come it would be closed for most of that time anyway. It did sound dubious and the courts argued against that. Since then what has happened?
a) By the time the suspension was ended the main opposition parties [Labour and Lib Dems] had had their conferences but the Tory one was coming up. The Tory party asked for the usual three day recess for their own conference and the opposition refused.
b) As you say the opposition was offered a general election after they passed rules to impede British negotiation and they refused. They could have voted down the government on a matter of confidence which would have forced a general election after a fortnight, which would already have occurred some weeks back but they refused. Simply because their aim is to stop Brexit by any means, not just a no deal Brexit and they were afraid they might lose the election. [Especially after Swinson made clear the Lib Dems if they got the chance would deny the people any say on the matter.] Their aim is to get the extension by any means to delay Brexit. The fact a deal has now been agreed between the EU and the government is a problem for them because they don't want any deal.
c) We now have a deal, albeit one that no one is that happy with. However the opposition are again, as you say, blocking that deal because they want the extension. As simple as that. Johnson was arguing for a no deal rather than the old May concessions as the opposition and the EU continued to consider those the only alternatives. In that case, with the UK trapped in the EU for as long as the EU wished no deal would have been the better option. However now we have a deal and the opposition refuse to allow it to be voted on.
d) The opposition deliberately delayed any vote until the letter sent to the EU had to go. Unfortunately when they insisted on that ruling they didn't exclude the PM sending a 2nd message that argued his actual case and pointing out an extension would make matters worse. ;) ] So he was also able to give his actual view. Even so the EU now has the power to delay matters further if they so choose and the UK can do nothing to prevent that. So the oppositions response to Johnson managing to state his case is to again block discussion of the new deal. Not to vote it down, as that could well fail, but to prevent it being voted on. Very democratic and responsible not!
Your assuming he's not genuine about the deal but do you have any evidence of that? True as a Tory I don't trust him but its the opposition that have been indulging in dirty tricks to prevent the bill being considered and voted on. Its clear that the opposition is bitterly opposed to any deal.
60
@Dasneko
The problem of trust is an important one for both sides and between the attitude of the Tories and the behaviour of the EU I doubt either side could be trusted. However the key wording is "has open borders without further agreements". Nothing to stop the two sides looking at possible approaches to control such access except that the EU won't look at it. It might end up being impractical but without trying we will never know.
Yes if it is the GFA is dead but as I have said before the EU should have made that clear to the British people. Barnier and Tusk have repeated commented to the news media here, talking primarily about the BBC as that's been my primarily source of info. They have often made abusive remarks, insults and threats, along with a lot of lying but they have never actual said that if Britain leaves the EU they would certainly kill the GFA. If they had done that a lot of confusion would have been cleared up.
On the money given its record of deceit and continually changing its argument I don't trust the EU at all. However the Donald himself, [Tusk not Trump but they are similar in their behaviour] when he compared the EU to a drinking club said that Britain can't expect any benefits after they leave the club. Shock, horror, we're not. However the same applies in reverse. The EU can't expect to keep putting their drinks on our tab after we're left. There will be some exceptions for things such as pension responsibilities but in terms of general payment to the EU budget or things they want to do forget it!
Both sides have played fast and loose with the rules in Parliament. The suspension of Parliament was longer than before by a good measure although reasons were given. I.e. that Parliament had already sat for a very long time and that with the party conference season to come it would be closed for most of that time anyway. It did sound dubious and the courts argued against that. Since then what has happened?
a) By the time the suspension was ended the main opposition parties [Labour and Lib Dems] had had their conferences but the Tory one was coming up. The Tory party asked for the usual three day recess for their own conference and the opposition refused.
b) As you say the opposition was offered a general election after they passed rules to impede British negotiation and they refused. They could have voted down the government on a matter of confidence which would have forced a general election after a fortnight, which would already have occurred some weeks back but they refused. Simply because their aim is to stop Brexit by any means, not just a no deal Brexit and they were afraid they might lose the election. [Especially after Swinson made clear the Lib Dems if they got the chance would deny the people any say on the matter.] Their aim is to get the extension by any means to delay Brexit. The fact a deal has now been agreed between the EU and the government is a problem for them because they don't want any deal.
c) We now have a deal, albeit one that no one is that happy with. However the opposition are again, as you say, blocking that deal because they want the extension. As simple as that. Johnson was arguing for a no deal rather than the old May concessions as the opposition and the EU continued to consider those the only alternatives. In that case, with the UK trapped in the EU for as long as the EU wished no deal would have been the better option. However now we have a deal and the opposition refuse to allow it to be voted on.
d) The opposition deliberately delayed any vote until the letter sent to the EU had to go. Unfortunately when they insisted on that ruling they didn't exclude the PM sending a 2nd message that argued his actual case and pointing out an extension would make matters worse. ;) ] So he was also able to give his actual view. Even so the EU now has the power to delay matters further if they so choose and the UK can do nothing to prevent that. So the oppositions response to Johnson managing to state his case is to again block discussion of the new deal. Not to vote it down, as that could well fail, but to prevent it being voted on. Very democratic and responsible not!
Your assuming he's not genuine about the deal but do you have any evidence of that? True as a Tory I don't trust him but its the opposition that have been indulging in dirty tricks to prevent the bill being considered and voted on. Its clear that the opposition is bitterly opposed to any deal.