kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Michel Barnier attacks those who want to undermine the EU...https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/there-is-now-a-farage-in-every-country-barnier-says-1.3690762
blanch152 wrote: » I think that if May had said all of that, the EU would be further away from a deal with Prime Minister Raab than the situation they are in now.
Bambi wrote: » A little introspection might be in order, They'd want to address the conditions they created that resulted in Farages popping up like mushrooms everywhere
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Ideally, I would have liked a leader who would either have scrapped the referendum result or waited for Johnson, Gove & Co. to come up with a full set of policy proposals for delivering Brexit in such a manner that the UK will be better off. Spoiler, there isn't one but they should be held accountable.
blanch152 wrote: » Examples please. I don't really know of any such strong political leaders. Strong political leaders can bring short-term success, but ultimately the divisions they need to foster to succeed ultimately come back to defeat them, unless they implement a totalitarian approach to opposition.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I think the only Farage we have seen in Ireland is Nigel on a day trip from brexitland.
Enzokk wrote: » Just another update and this time from Coveney,https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481678530015237https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1060481684599128064 This is very good from our politicians in the way they are tempering expectations based on the leaks we are getting from "sources".
blanch152 wrote: » It is impossible to judge May until a deal is or isn't done. She has kept all of the balls in the air until now, without there being a collapse of the talks, a rift in her party, losing a parliamentary majority or precipitating a general election. All being said, that is some achievement. Some on this thread have said a strong leader should have done this or that. Strong leaders create divisions. If a strong leader had taken strong decisions, they wouldn't be leader now. May has managed to get the UK to the endgame, others would not have been able to do that. For all that, her ultimate success or failure depends on whether she can deliver a deal that holds the UK together and ensures it can continue to exist and grow without suffering political convulsions. A near-impossible task, but one she actually is quite close to pulling off. She has looked weak, she has looked indecisive, she has flown kites, but all the time they have inched forward. If she falls short, and a hard Brexit remains a real possibility, the argument that they should have had a political convulsion before now wins out. However, any deal that results in an orderly Brexit, with limited damage to the UK or the EU, is a vindication of May.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Good post, Blanch152. I don't mind May as much as many on here. Maybe Shipman's second installment in his trilogy influenced my thinking but of all of the individuals who could be steering HMS United Kingdom, she's a better choice than most. Ideally, I would have liked a leader who would either have scrapped the referendum result or waited for Johnson, Gove & Co. to come up with a full set of policy proposals for delivering Brexit in such a manner that the UK will be better off. Spoiler, there isn't one but they should be held accountable. Regarding the bit in bold, I am curious as to how viable the UK is as a geopolitical entity. Scotland's independence movement is by no means vanquished while I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen in Northern Ireland. I don't think right wing Unionism is a viable political ideology in the long term and will have alienated many moderates not just by backing Brexit but resisting any possible backstop solutions. I don't know much about the current lay of the land regarding TUV or the UUP but the DUP risk toxifying Unionism as things are. In other news, Holyrood has approved a Liberal Democrat amendment committing it to supporting a People's Vote:https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1060223771204837376
Zubeneschamali wrote: » There really isn't a majority even in the Tory party for a no-deal brexit, there are only 60 in the ERG, and as we have seen repeatedly, they are mostly stupid (Davis especially, but Rees-Mogg too and Boris, unless it is all a cunning plan), and also cowardly. They have consistently failed to lead, resigned when given any power, and prefer to throw brickbats from the backbenches. A real leader like Thatcher would not be afraid of this crew.
lawred2 wrote: » Oh yeah I'm sure they'd tear the place apart :rolleyes:
prawnsambo wrote: » I knida see his point. The audience will not be including Ulster Unionists in any great numbers. Nationalists on the other hand, will be there. It's a bit like the tree falling in the forest, but in this case, the trees are sentient.
Anecdotal of course, and to be contrasted with the (again, apparent-) perma-clusterf**ck that reigns at the Home Office, from Nokes at the top all the way down to applications’ processors. That said, the zeal with which they continue to apply the Hostile Environment policy of 2010 tells you that they at least must be given some political directions alright.
Leroy42 wrote: » I mean, in terms of the DUP and abortion, equal right for marriage etc, we would need to move backwards. Sure the schools etc is a problem, but they already have schools which can be taken over by the state and we have a system of Educate together ready to do it. I fully agree on the anthem at matches, but that is a personal thing. Would it help, maybe and I wouldn't be against it, but it starts to look like BRexit again. They want a UI because they no longer see the benefits of being in the UK, but they want Ireland to change for them so they get to keep everything they like. Choices are just that, a choice. You rarely get everything you want. Is staying in the UK after Brexit worth it given that the alternative is a UI. One can only make the choice based on the options in front of you. If Ireland is so bad, don't vote to join.
J Mysterio wrote: » A United Ireland would require the North to adopt our laws RE: abortion and gay marriage.
BonnieSituation wrote: » There's no danger in toxifying unionism. Thy will is done! The TUV are a irrelevance outside of Jim Allister and handful of extremely bigoted and idiotic councillors and MLAs. I wouldn't worry about them. The UUP are at a crossroads. There is a place for a mild and pragmatic Unionism (well imho the place is the bin, but I can be pragmatic too) but unfortunately since Nesbitt (needlessly) resigned they are rudderless. Without Stormont up and running Swann is a beaten docket.
charlie14 wrote: » I would have held out some hope for the UUP as pragmatic unionist party during the Brexit campaign but from the result of the later UK GE where they flocked en masse to the DUP, now none whatsoever. Two cheek of the same ...
jm08 wrote: » I would hope that the thrust of any unification would be more accepting other's traditions rather than just changing everything and annoying everyone. Something such as making the 12th July a national holiday with an Orange Parade in Dublin (and elsewhere if they want to). The big thing for unionists is the monarchy (notice Arleen's favourite brooch is of the crown). They love the queen, so we are going to have to find a way to include her (or her successors) - possibly through joining the Commonwealth.
jm08 wrote: » They love the queen, so we are going to have to find a way to include her.
Enzokk wrote: » I am more concerned that politicians doesn't have even a passing knowledge of their briefs that they are given. We have Karen Bradley who didn't know that much about her future role and now you have Raab campaigning to leave the EU without knowing how the relationship with the EU affects the UK. I think the most worrying thing about Raab and this pronouncement is that he is actually the one person MPs turned to in Parliament when they needed anything or wanted to get clarification on the EU. He was an adviser in the Foreign Office on the EU and he is a qualified lawyer. If he is only now learning about the EU how do you expect most other people to have made a educated choice on whether to leave the EU?
charlie14 wrote: » While there may be a lot of merit in your suggestions, somehow I cannot see us joining a commonwealth that has the British monarch as its head being accepted as one of them.
jm08 wrote: » I think we'll need to suck that one up. All it will mean is that Wills and Kate (or whoever) will drop in every now and then and that those up north can still get knighted like Sir Edmund Hillery was knighted etc. It will also mean Irish athletes will be able to participate in the Commonwealth Games and maybe win something for a change!
Leroy42 wrote: » There is a big difference between accepting ones right to march etc to changing the country to suit a minority or a minority. The key question that those is NI will have to answer, if a vote ever happens, is if the present NI (as in at that time) with its monarch and NHS and blue passports and being governed by England etc is still the best option. The other alternative open to them is to join with a NI. Thi swould of course mean the end of Stormont, the end of the assembly, removing Union Jack from buildings etc etc. They become citizens of Ireland (well they already are I suppose) and I would assume that the UK will continue to allow them citizens of GB is they so wish. But money would be Euro, Leo (or whomever) would be Taoiseach, Dail would be parliament, KPH, Kilos, etc etc.
charlie14 wrote: » Not knocking your post, but it would take a lot more than a few baubles to get us to that level of sucking up, and I don`t see much else being a member of the Commonwealth would have to offer
