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.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Rather timely tweet by Barnier with EEA politicians (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) - if May had agreed to remain in the European Economic Area after Brexit, it would have solved the vast majority of issues relating to the Border, and adhering as an independent member, rather than through EFTA, would have enabled bilateral agreements on customs:http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1064869237834031104
lawred2 wrote: » An Ciarraioch wrote: » Rather timely tweet by Barnier with EEA politicians (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) - if May had agreed to remain in the European Economic Area after Brexit, it would have solved the vast majority of issues relating to the Border, and adhering as an independent member, rather than through EFTA, would have enabled bilateral agreements on customs:http://twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1064869237834031104 was there not some concern from EEA members that the UK would have been too big for it? or did I imagine that!?
Tell me how wrote: » I think that there is trouble ahead. One way or another. Either Brexit is cancelled or implemented as per current agreement which will lead to euro-sceptics claiming democracy was not adhered to and that this just shows how much power the EU has. Yes they might be small in number but they always were and look how it got to this. If it goes ahead, then the economic fall out and acrimony from a younger impoverished restricted generation will persist. Euro-Sceptics in not just the UK will use it as a warning of the strength and motivation of the union if the UK can be beaten in to submission. And, maybe some extremes on the other side will look to capatilise on such a "victory" if it could be called to that to try to increase power within the EU over national political strategies.
lawred2 wrote: » was there not some concern from EEA members that the UK would have been too big for it? or did I imagine that!?
seamus wrote: » This is something I had called for, before. But a great point was made above that the sudden appearance of SF could cause some other parties to polarise immediately and vote the opposite way to SF on anything. Rather than achieving an actual collapse, instead you might get some other cobbled together coalition such as the Lib Dems or SNP joining with the Tories on an "Anyone but the terrorists" agenda. Sinn Fein are probably about as well-known in Westminster as the DUP, so it wouldn't take very much for the media and party spokespeople to convince the country that making a deal with anyone is better than letting Sinn Féin change the balance of power. There can be no doubt it would be an enormous disruption in any case. But a rather unpredictable one, IMO.
oscarBravo wrote: » They don't have an MP.
Mortelaro wrote: » Regarding SF in Westminster, it would only be for six months and they wouldn't lose many votes by saying we're taking our seats for 6 months to frustrate Brexit in the NATIONAL interest of Ireland They should be thinking outside the box on this one
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again:http://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1064867435516518400
lawred2 wrote: » and around and around we go
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Tom Newton Dunn reports that the UK Cabinet is discussing Max Fac again
BonnieSituation wrote: » They would absolutely lose votes. One of the reasons people vote for them rather than the SDLP is BECAUSE of them being abstentionist. How many ways can the same thing be phrased?
serfboard wrote: » Like a lot of other stories that the British press have been "reporting" (a.k.a being spoon-fed propaganda), I'm guessing that this is meant for domestic consumption only.
Hurrache wrote: » Many remainers and unionists outraged on Twitter by Boulton's apparent lack of impartiality and ability to listen to answers during that interview, with some even stretching to claim Wilson was brilliant.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Why though? They have an agreement. ---- I'm not being naïve. I just can't get my head around it. Like, you know when something is so profoundly stupid your brain almost leaves your body.
Mortelaro wrote: » Their voters must be as daft as the DUP voters then in terms of not knowing whats good for them! Anyone with a bit of logic could see the merits of a temporary entry A wrecking ball strategy
BonnieSituation wrote: » Are you for real? SF have campaigned on an abstentionist policy for a century. They cannot be held responsible for the British electorate having a meltdown. Maybe just, maybe this time "it wuz the Brits dat dun it" and might have to accept responsibility for the mire they find themselves in. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with what I and others state above wrt the moot effect - on commons arithmetic - of them taking their seats.
Mortelaro wrote: » I am for real The usual suspects might rile up if SF temporarily took seats but just as there's a 'really would prefer to remain but how do we get there' majority in the commons There's also a majority who respect the GFA in my humble opinion Many moons have passed,enough to lighten the mood on most mps being worried about SF's past Extraordinary times,extraordinary measures
BonnieSituation wrote: » But there's already a majority for remain in the commons, the issue isn't the SF seats. Theyre not exactly the IPP.
Nody wrote: » And this is the "we got 80 or more members" group that she's been trying to placate the whole time who can't even get 48 letters in. May if anything should take that as a confidence vote and simply ignore that wing of the party and push her own policies now.
blanch152 wrote: » If SF want to stay out, that's their business. What it does highlight is their complete powerlessness and lack of influence at the moment. Out of government in the North. Out of government in the South. Out of parliament in the UK. Not even biggest opposition party in the South. They are a footnote in any discussion of Brexit, the biggest issue on this island this century.
seamus wrote: » This is something I had called for, before. But a great point was made above that the sudden appearance of SF could cause some other parties to polarise immediately and vote the opposite way to SF on anything. Rather than achieving an actual collapse, instead you might get some other cobbled together coalition such as the Lib Dems or SNP joining with the Tories on an "Anyone but the terrorists" agenda. Sinn Fein are probably about as well-known in Westminster as the DUP, so it wouldn't take very much for the media and party spokespeople to convince the country that making a deal with anyone is better than letting Sinn F change the balance of power. There can be no doubt it would be an enormous disruption in any case. But a rather unpredictable one, IMO.
BonnieSituation wrote: » It's also the business of their constituents who voted for them not to take up their Westminster seats. Blanch, you'd be the first to criticise SF for flip flopping and taking their seats. So hop off the horse.
Mc Love wrote: » How could you vote for a party that wont even take their seats in parliament, might as well not vote.
blanch152 wrote: » Not at all, I would ask them why they didn't do it sooner.
