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.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » What the DUP / Kate Hoey say from here to the end of this process is irrelevant. We know their position. So what. You've been outflanked. Unionism is irrelevant. They're now Hard Brexiters as they won't accept this deal (and the DUP probably wanted a Hard Brexit all along). Grand. I know where they are. Much more relevant and interesting discussion is to be had elsewhere.
briany wrote: » Kate Hoey on Sky News flatly accusing the Irish government of using the backstop as a way of achieving a United Ireland.
An Ciarraioch wrote: » Most bizarre suggestion is that Labour could petition the Queen, asking her to sack May, and invite Corbyn to attempt to form a government! In fairness, it did happen in Australia.
J Mysterio wrote: » Quickest route to a United Ireland is not to have a backstop. The backstop gives NI the best of all worlds. Kate Hoey is a disgrace.
10000maniacs wrote: » I find it hard to fathom that Liz would interfere in Australian politics.
joe40 wrote: » May's deal kept that staus quo in place and the unionists are opposing it!!!
robinph wrote: » I think there is a governor who takes on the role of appointing and accepting resignations of the Australian PM on her behalf. It's only a ceremonial position though, just like the Queen and the Irish president for example.
Folkstonian wrote: » Predictable antagonistic drivel from the SNP as per usual. Scotland is in an economic and political union with England because it made formal requests to be so in the early 18th century. Scotland’s future relationship with England will be (or has been) decided by its people with a clear and unambiguous vote on the matter. Remarkable parallels exist between Scotland’s relationship vis a vis England, and Britain’s relationship vis a vis Europe. Both are there by their own volition, both are free to leave to the detriment of their economic growth and future prosperity should they wish to do so. How incredibly tiresome it is to hear SNP MPs wallow in self pity and bemoan their station week after week as if they remain a far flung colony taken in the age of empire building. Scotland was the empire. From a personal perspective, with my family home being 35 miles from France and 350 miles from Scotland, a close and productive future relationship with the former is a far more pressing concern. If (hopefully when) Brexit is reversed, it will be because the British people desired it, not because the SNP were the saviour of England. It would be a delicious outcome if Britain remained in the EU and resolved to block any future attempts from an independent Scotland to achieve fast tracked access. Petty.. maybe. But sure this is the thread for it!
briany wrote: » Unionism can't be irrelevant considering that the DUP are in an exalted position within the British government at the moment and hold the balance in certain votes and that Theresa May has said more than once that the UK can never agree to a backstop that would threaten to divide the UK. NI Unionism might be a backward philosophy and currently counter-productive to NI's interests, but even if there's nothing in the backstop idea that can bring the DUP to the table, we can at least not say anything to push them even further away.
Econ__ wrote: » It’s been clear for many months now that any Brexit settlement is going to need significant cross party support to pass, which effectively makes the DUP/ERG redundant actors in the process as the nature of their vision for Brexit has by far the least support. People have been surprised at the events of the past couple of days but it was quite easily foreseen if one has paid attention to the reality of the parliamentary arithmetic; No deal off the table & a straight fight between Remain and Softer Brexit.
Leroy42 wrote: » TM should have been working on garnering cross party support for the deal months ago. She instead tried to placate the ERG by talking tough, same with the DUP and at the same time treating any and all others with contempt. She is now surprised that she is struggling to get any support. SHe has mislead and played politics with this issue from the start and now is demanding that others simply set all that aside and work for what best for UK and not think about her. She has actively made this all about her from the start of her term. She was going to deliver, she was making the decisions, she was in charge, she was insulted by the EU etc.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Unionism was relevant for a portion of the process (effectively a calendar year) where they held the threat of something - that being withdrawing support for the present government. They overplayed that leverage to the extent that May went ahead and concluded a deal that broke their red lines. They have now pressed the red button and abandoned their confidence and supply deal. Thus they are now irrelevant, because they have no further injury to cause. They've done what they can do and the process continues without them.
briany wrote: » C&S isn't quite finished yet, according to Sammy Wilson. It's certainly been a fraught relationship but so long as the DUP have the power to throw the current government into disarray (and May needs every vote she can get), it can't be said that they, or Unionism which they claim to represent is irrelevant. Maybe if and when Labour get voted in, perhaps with the SNP propping them up, could we say that Unionism (or at least NI Unionism) is irrelevant.
ambro25 wrote: » Wrong. But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’). No because (i) there is no legal mechanism to ‘eject’ a Member State from the EU (the CJEU could only ever rule that the revocation application was made in bad faith, but cannot order that the MS be outed in consequence - the 2 year period re-triggered would still run) ; and (ii) on the basis of the AG opinion, there is a strong argument against the EU bodies and Members ever pushing for such a mechanism/outcome (‘forcing a MS out’). It is in good part because of (ii) above, that I highly doubt that the EU would ever ‘enforce’ the good/bad faith test (refusing an Art.50 revocation on the basis of a belief -and it would have to be a belief informed by factual past behaviour- would effectively force the withdrawing MS out at the end of the running 2-year period: which EUCO participants, or EU heads, or <relevant assessors-deciders> would be ready and willing to wear that responsibility, really?)
Tell me how wrote: » Anna Soubry as good as said so in her speech in the commons last night.
MrMusician18 wrote: » A ruling from the CJEU in that context wouldn't be forcing a member state out. It would be CJEU not permitting an abuse of process, after it had been granted the statutory two years required. The member state in question would have been afforded everything it was entitled to under the previous art. 50 process. I can't see how a court which is set up to defend the rules of the Union allowing the rules to be used to undermine the Union. It wouldn't be up to the member states governments, couldn't anyone force the issue by taking it to the CJEU?
Leroy42 wrote: » You'll have to take my word that I wasn't aware of that.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago. It merely confirms the analysis and understanding of the backstop by commentators following its publication. It won't change any minds or perceptions. Quite the non issue.And I can actually see why the government would have fought the matter as it sets quite a damaging precedent. Silly games all round.
briany wrote: » There'll be a change in their status within the United Kingdom in being in a different economic bloc. That's what the DUP are objecting to. Doesn't matter even if that arrangement would end up as advantageous for NI. It's an ideological matter for the DUP. No matter where the line would be drawn, whether on the NI border, or in the Irish sea, it's going to upset one side or the other and undermine the peace process. The PP and Brexit just aren't really compatible.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago.
J Mysterio wrote: » Its a stupid point though. NI is already different to the rest of the UK, with different checks already in effect, whats a few more for all the benefits? It's a ridiculous argument. They can sell to both markets and enjoy a rare situation not afforded others.
bob mcbob wrote: » Yes bloody Scots seeking to get involved in shaping Brexit. That is for their English lords and masters only. The Scots really need to know their place.
Folkstonian wrote: » Scotland has historically been heavily over-represented in parliament. Scotland had the opportunity to unilaterally decide if its future was to be inside or outside the union. It will have further chances if it requires them. Your lazy slurs are factually shocking and verge on xenophobic drivel.
briany wrote: » It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway. It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.
