Err, yes Polly, that’s how negotiations are done

Here’s the Daily Mail’s comment the morning after: “In an act of betrayal and dishonesty, the House of Cronies, Dodgy Donors and Has-Beens voted last night by 358 to 256 to amend the Brexit Bill.”

Warnings that the upper house will be “signing its own death warrant” may come oddly from the Mail, not a vociferous supporter of reform until now. But hey, Brexit makes all kinds of strange new bedfellows

The Lords debate exposed the prime minister’s contradictory and deceitful arguments against protecting EU citizens living here. If, on this most popular and painfully human question, she will give no inch, that’s a terrible augury for how she intends to conduct these negotiations, opening with a war cry to all 27 countries: we hold your people hostage.

We have something you want, here’s the things we want, shall we do a deal?

33 comments on “Err, yes Polly, that’s how negotiations are done

  1. EU forrins in the U.K. should be allowed to stay in . UK people in EU forrin should be allowed to stay in UR forrin.

    Tying the UK into the first bit without getting a corresponding undertaking from the forrins would be very much contrary to the interests of those UK people needing some security on the second bit. One of which is Polly who, presumably, would like her right to own and occupy Tuscan Villas to be protected.

  2. I really can’t see how it is moral to insist we guarantee EU nationals in the UK right now ( because the uncertainty is upsetting) while not worrying about the status of UK nationals in the EU .

    I think it is an example of the leftie nationalism: You left the country so removed yourself from our power, therefore you are dead to us

  3. Any EU deal should include the UK gubmint doing absolutely nothing while the Italians confiscate (sans compo) Pol’s villa and use it to house migrants.

    Its the right, the moral thing to do.

  4. As DevonChap says, these “moral” in their own words peers (and journalists) are not taking a stand to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK; they are protecting those rights WITHOUT OBTAINING RECIPROCAL RIGHTS FOR UK CITIZENS IN THE EU. There is nothing at all moral about hanging your own people out to dry.

  5. Bunch o’ c**ts.

    This is the caring left. Piss on your own and give everything to those who are not.

    Obviously never negotiated with a dodgy second-hand car dealer (like the EU) in their lives.

  6. The starting point for a lot of these people is that we’ve don’t something wicked and have let the EU down by making a democratic decision to leave. Remember too that a lot of Europhilia in this country is necessarily divorced from reality. The EU is incapable of being bad. The EU is nice, like recycling.

    Consequently if the EU decided to expel all British people, as Germans were expelled from Eastern Europe after the war, it would be our fault, not theirs. Naughty us.

  7. Yes and no. Of all the assets we have that they want, the fate of overseas populace is small beer. And those rights are already protected in law. Give on this one but not on the “meaningful” vote should bring the muppets into line

  8. I posted an ironic comment on that article about UK second home owners in say Tuscany intended to pillory Toynbee. Was surprised to see that my comment was not understood and I got critical comments for it.

  9. Remind me: how many of the currently sitting Lords are getting an EU pension (which they don’t have to declare as a conflict of interest)?

  10. Hostages? Polly and the left can’t resist taking some emotive term and then deliberately trying to stretch its meaning for rhetorical advantage — cf. ‘slavery’.

    More generally… I believe the remainiac strategy is to weaken the government’s negotiating hand at every turn – which is what Polly is trying to do here — and then win the right to reject any deal (including a no deal WTO arrangement) which they hope would probably lead to another referendum….They will never give up.

  11. I appreciate some are concerned about protecting UK nationals in the EU.

    Personally, right from the start (and it’s not too late now but unfortunately it will look like “reacting to events”) I would have set a unilateral example, as follows:

    – Up to invoking Article 50, all EU nationals currently in the UK will be protected / free to remain (and without the excessive bureaucracy currently being dreamt up by the usual imbecilic jobsworths)

    – Re British nationals in the EU, your call?

    – The issue of “British nationals in the EU” will not under any circumstances form part of any negotiations that take place arising from invoking Article 50 (and mean it, any attempt to include it later simply gets ripped up).

    As countries like Spain will instantly want to reciprocate (UK pension incomes etc?), either the EU reciprocates or the EU starts to splinter on the issue.

    If it splinters on a reciprocal issue as simple as this, then with a bit of luck the EU will be open to a lot more splintering during the negotiations (to our benefit).

    We’ve done our bit (and which we should have done from the start), no one can accuse us of “holding decent people hostage” (or whatever “language” is currently doing the rounds).

    And Polly will of course be delighted with our virtue, as she looks on in admiration from her Tuscan villa…:)

  12. The whole issue of EU citizens is a red herring. This is the legislation to trigger Article 50 as per the referendum. Nothing more, nothing less. Parliament should simply approve it. This is not the place for amendments.

  13. RA and Theo

    +1

    Theo, that’s why I would remove it from the negotiation process.

    Sorry, Tim, if ultimately you end up as collateral damage as a result. Personally, I don’t think that will happen – but, hey, with furriners, you can never tell…:)

  14. Funny how the Remainers don’t complain about the EU’s failure to guarantee rights of British people living in the EU.

    They hold the EU to a lower standard.

  15. The DM’s not wrong.

    The House of Lords is no longer fit for purpose. We’re not paying them to privilege foreigners over British citizens.

    This was a wrecking amendment, designed to try to poke a stick in the spokes of the nation’s democratic decision to leave the EU.

    We don’t need a second chamber that ostentatiously virtue signals about how much it loves foreigners. Replace them with an elected body or a random slice of the public via a lottery.

  16. Everyone knows that there’s no moral problem with saying to 26 other people in the room, can you grant me the same privilege that you ask i grant you?” We know that that’s fine.

    Change ‘privilege’ to ‘right’ and you’ll get an argument. Because rights (the human ones at least) once acknowledged shouldn’t be bargained for.
    That’s what this is about … is it a right for a foreigner to stay in a country or a privilege.

  17. “..is it a right for a foreigner to stay in a country or a privilege.”

    As someone in that category, I’ve always regarded it as a privilege & behaved accordingly. I presume the other Blokes feel similarly?

  18. Reform of the House of Lords is one of those inertia things. If it the Lords didn’t exist in its current form, you wouldn’t create it like this. It only exists like this because it’s been gradually, slowly reformed.

    So, I’d like to thank them for making a load of rather pointless noise that has awoken the attention of the public. The press will now be going after the lords: expect lots of stories about the attendance allowances, dodgy business connections and so forth.

  19. BiS

    ‘sactly

    And that is what has been lost in the process of mass uncontrolled immigration.

  20. As a Leaver I would berfectly happy for non-UK EU citizens in the UK to be treated exactly the same as though they had been granted leave to remain, exactly the same as any other foreigner, with exactly the same rights (can upgrade to citizenship, can enter the country without a visa, etc.) and exactly the same restrictions (have to have been here 5+ years, must have adequate language skills, can’t “resort to public funds”, lose it if you leave the country for 2+ years, etc.)

  21. PF

    “Theo, that’s why I would remove it from the negotiation process.”

    I follow your reasoning; but I’m not convinced. If this concession is made to the remainiacs, they will scent weakness of resolve and they’ll campaign for something else that would weaken the UK government’s negotiating position. One idea that has been floated by the remainiacs is that it is “immoral” to use the UK’s defence and intelligence capabilities as bargaining chips because we could never morally refuse to cooperate with our European allies.

  22. I like what the Lords have done. The amendment shows they care about people, which is in stark contrast to those chambers in Brussels and Strasbourg that care primarily about transferring public funds to the already wealthy and think we should all be regulated until we all have equal outcomes.
    It shows this rather odd institution of our peers is still better than anything the EU supranationalists have.

  23. This is why I said ever since June 24 that Article 50 needs to be invoked as soon as possible. A lot of naive Leavers were saying there’s no hurry to invoke it. Of course there was. Now we’re struggling to even get it invoked, and without there being a whole bunch of wrecking baggage attached to it.

    As I said earlier in this thread, the whole issue of EU citizens doesn’t matter at this stage. We shouldn’t even be discussing it now. That’s for later. What we need is for Article 50 to be triggered, with no way for MPs to keep us in the EU forever by voting down a deal.

    “I believe the remainiac strategy is to weaken the government’s negotiating hand at every turn – which is what Polly is trying to do here — and then win the right to reject any deal (including a no deal WTO arrangement) which they hope would probably lead to another referendum….They will never give up.”

    Exactly right.

  24. “Brexit does indeed make strange bedfellows. Polly now loves the HoL.”

    No she doesn’t. Leftist just accept support from whatever source furthers their argument at this point in time. If X helps now, quote X. Tomorrow X may be a neoliberal reactionary bigot because they disagree with the left about something else, and this all totally consistent.

    Welcome to the world of the mentally ill Left.

  25. Theo

    “If this concession is made”

    I accept where what you are saying re timing.

    Right back at the start, before May made her idiotic “they’ll all be hostages” quip (before she expected to be PM), the Brexit side should simply have said “all here at the referendum will be fine” (later adjusted to “at the time of Art 50” or whenever).

    Vienna Convention and all that, it would have been perfectly reasonable. May went and created her own shit pile. I tihnk most of us at the time thought she was an imbecile for saying what she said.

    You are right, thanks to her lack of nous, it would probably now look like weakness.

    Though re everything else, including defence etc, it’s simple: “Sod off lefties”. I think it’s only the people issue that potentially risks splitting the Cons (both remainers and leavers)?

  26. PF

    “I think it’s only the people issue that potentially risks splitting the Cons (both remainers and leavers)?”

    Possibly; but I fear not. Think of the remainiacs saying something like, ‘Using the UK’s superior intelligence gathering as a bargaining chip is immoral. Would we ever withold intelligence about a terrorist attack?? Think about the children…!!!’ etc, etc. You surely get my drift: they will exploit any and every issue emotively. They are fanatics and obsessives with an evidence-free faith in the goodness and inevitability of European union.

  27. Theo

    Re “other issues”, Ken Clarke and perhaps one or two such as that sour brat (from the Cons). But not enough to stop Article 50 in the Commons?

    The risk to the moderate Con remainers is that they scupper the process and are directly held up as having thwarted the will of the people.

    Ken Clarke doesn’t care – he’s a “supra-nationalist” (insert your own description). Even if there are quite a lot of genuinely moderate Con remainers, I would guess that there are very few rabid Con remainers and that are happy to provoke an early election.

    Whatever the reality, I guess we’re about to find out!

  28. PF

    Article 50 will probably be triggered with few Conservative abstentions or votes against, though possibly with some unhelpful amendments. But the remainiacs rearguard action will continue: they’ll do everything they can to weaken the government’s bargaining position during negotiations.

    Ken Clarke (b1940) is pain on the EU; but, somehow, I can understand someone of his ‘war baby’ generation being an ardent supra-nationalist europhile more than I can ever understand younger MPs being so. The EEC/EU was last century’s perceived solution to German militarism and economic dominance. It now looks very dated. Yet Anna Soubry (b 1956) and many even younger have no such excuse.

  29. “Ken Clarke doesn’t care – he’s a “supra-nationalist” (insert your own description). ”

    Cunt?

  30. The amendment shows they care about people

    The problem is that they’re demonstrating that the people they care about are not the British people. You know, the ones they’re supposed to represent.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.