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.
cryptocurrency wrote: » CBI like it. It’s previous record on various events...... In the 1930s it supported appeasement. In the 1940s it supported nationalisation. In the 1950s it supported state planning. In the 1960s it supported tripartite industrial relations. In the 1970s it supported price controls. In the 1980s it opposed getting tough with the USSR. In the 1990s it supported the ERM. In the 2000s it supported joining the Euro. In the 2010s it supported Remain… … and now it has declared its support for May’s draft withdrawal agreement.
theguzman wrote: » Basically there should be another referendum until the democratic will of the people is overwritten. That is not democracy that is a diktat from a Dictatorship.
theguzman wrote: » Totally different situations with 16 years between referenda. The previous referenda sought to further tighten the restrictions on Abortion which was rejected in 2002, wheras this year the trend towards liberalisation continued. So actually the will of the people continued and strengthened from 2002 which contradicts your entire point.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » And then there's the voters who voted against immigration from the EU in order to get more immigration from third countries. You could probably swing a new referendum by pointing out that Brexit won't change the amount of immigration, just where people come from.
Thargor wrote: » Ah FFS something needs to be done with the 2 that have infected this thread in the last couple of days, its a joke.
rogue-entity wrote: » Would it be cynical of me to suggest that such a plan serves to achieve a similar objective to the much-abused H1-B in the US? Discriminate based on arbitrary 'skills' to import cheaper labour that are then shackled to an employer who can pay them below the market rate because it's take it or leave (literally).
As for May's remark, it's not only offensive it's also complete bull****. If Company A is seeking a Software Developer, the current law doesn't prevent them from hiring an Engineer from Sydney or a Developer from Delhi; it also doesn't prevent them from hiring a local from the UK or hiring someone from Estonia.
This much we know: whatever the stories of the millions of people who ended up backing it, Brexit originated in the failure of successive Conservative leaders to adequately deal with a tribe of uncontrollable Tory ideologues, and in the ingrained tendency of post-Thatcher Conservatives to play fast and loose with the livelihoods and security of the rest of us. In an awful instance of irony, the misery and resentment sown by the deindustralisation the Tories accelerated in the 1980s and the austerity they pushed on the country 30 years later were big reasons why so many people decided to vote leave. What also helped was a surreal campaign of lies and disinformation, both during and after the referendum campaign, waged by entitled people with their eyes only on the main chance. These things are part of a vast charge sheet not only against the modern Conservative party, but an alliance of old and new money that has set the basic terms of British politics for the past 40 years. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson were educated at the same exclusive school as the prime minister whose idiotic decision to hold a referendum gave them their opportunity. Nigel Farage and Arron Banks are archetypal examples of the kind of spivs who were given licence to do as they pleased in the 80s. For all their absurd bleating about “elites”, we all know what these people represent: the two faces of the modern English ruling class, who have long combined to be nothing but trouble. Which brings us to the question that, for all my lingering ambivalence, I cannot shake off: if the Labour party leadership is so radical, and allied with the best leftwing traditions, where is its anger about what these people have done? While some of us have been spitting feathers about the deceptions perpetrated by rightwing leavers, Jeremy Corbyn has seemed barely interested. Is there some kind of awful equivalence between the rightwing Brexiteers, who see national crisis as the ideal seedbed for a free-market utopia, and leftwingers who think socialism is similarly best assisted by disaster? Whatever the explanation, and whatever the levels of support for leave among Labour voters, a supposed party of opposition – and a leftwing one at that – accepting a project birthed and then sustained in the worst kind of rightwing political circles is a very odd spectacle indeed. This, surely, will also be the verdict of history.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » It sadly is the politics of today. It used to be that one informed themselves, weighed the options and went with the most logical choice/candidate whose program came closest. Nowadays it seems to be simply about winning, sticking it to the other guy, showing them who's boss, etc... International politics has sunk to the intellectual level of six year olds for most people, hence Brexit, Trump and Neonazi politics in Eastern Europe. The fact that thousands of people voted Brexit because of Bob Geldof very deftly underscores that point. Wonder where they keep their noses now, but as long as they can spite their face...
Nesta99 wrote: » This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers. For the sake of the discussion lets assume that the numbers will mean that the DUP will be in a position to block parlimentary endorsment of this deal. They have tonight abstained and on one budgetry vote voted with Labour. Its generally considered that Brexit is a serious potential threat to the union, Scotland making waves for another independance referendum and that Northern Ireland could end up pragmatically moving to even closer ties with the Republic. Yes abstentionism is a long help policy for Sein Fein but in the past they had a similar policy toward Dail Eireann(?). If they have an opportunity to influence things in Westminster toward their ultimate goal of a United Ireland, via the current political chaos in the UK and by neutralising the Unionist BoP then why wont they take the potential opportunity to further their goal. Apologies if I have missed this being explained before and I get that its is likely to be a bit more complex than what Ive said above but the mischievious side of me would love to see the look on the DUP faces if SF were to rock up and take their seats and vote. It would also have the potential of building a kind of trust among the Southern Irish electorate as paragmatism overtakes principle and indeed it would gain huge publicity. Thoughts?
Nesta99 wrote: » This has probably been discussed to death in some other buried thread but why dont Sein Fein take up their Westminster seats to negate the DUP veto they currently hold with their balance of power numbers.
ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: » Might be interesting This is Live David Davis and Jaocb Rees-Mogg appear on Brexit panel
cml387 wrote: » Really? Corbyn's sole aim is to have a general election and get into power. I don't see how backing the deal will achieve that.
Inquitus wrote: » Indeed, Labour won't support the deal, if May gets the deal through the Tories will be in power until 2022 when parliaments term is up.
Shelga wrote: » But what if the DUP withdraw their support for May’s government, as looks likely? She won’t have a majority in the HoC then.
fash wrote: » Because the unprecedented sight of Sinn Fein coming to vote for "X" is quite likely to make a lot of on-the-fence MPs vote the other way - so all for nothing.
Nesta99 wrote: » fash wrote: » Because the unprecedented sight of Sinn Fein coming to vote for "X" is quite likely to make a lot of on-the-fence MPs vote the other way - so all for nothing. Thats a fair point! But assume that MPs would not vote to spite SF isnt it time that the party seek a mandate from members to influence any Irish question in Westminster. Not just specific to Brexit but using direct rule to table motions on eg an Irish language act, liberalisation of laws to move in to line with the rest of the UK. While I know that the number of SF MPs do not equal DUP it would (potentially narrow the gap and certainly provide a platform that would be so dispicable to NI Unionists that a functioning Stormont is the lesser of two evils.
Nesta99 wrote: » Thats a fair point! But assume that MPs would not vote to spite SF isnt it time that the party seek a mandate from members to influence any Irish question in Westminster. Not just specific to Brexit but using direct rule to table motions on eg an Irish language act, liberalisation of laws to move in to line with the rest of the UK. While I know that the number of SF MPs do not equal DUP it would (potentially narrow the gap and certainly provide a platform that would be so dispicable to NI Unionists that a functioning Stormont is the lesser of two evils.
josip wrote: » It looks like Spain are taking the DUP role on the EU side.https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/1120/1012072-brexit-europe/
sink wrote: » They don't recognize the right of the Parliament of Westminster to rule over any part of Ireland. In taking up their seats they would be disregarding the entire principle on which their party was founded. It's not going to happen. If people want to vote for a nationalist party that does sit in Westminster they can vote for the SDLP.
