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: » I'm not worried. It was never in the EU's interest to do us on the backstop. That hasn't changed. The ECJ ruling is a significant event, and could be driving her decision to pull the vote as much as anything.
serfboard wrote: » Yep - as I said before, Parliament is stuck. No majorities for Deal, No Deal, Remain. Despite what the ERG and Labour say, there is no "better deal" available. The only solutions are a General Election (unlikely IMO) or a Second Referendum. That's it.
ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: » They all signed off on the agreement already a week or so ago knowing it most likely wouldn't pass in the UK. EU member states signed off on agreement. EU say this is the agreement and no renegotiations. This is only an issue now for the UK Government.
10000maniacs wrote: » 3 cabinet ministers have confirmed that Tuesdays vote is definitely off. Ireland is going to come under pressure on the backstop.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Apparently (and this could be spin), Ireland has been making al lot of preparations on private for a hard Brexit. The reason the preparations aren't public is because the government don't want to give ammunition to British politicians - Brexiteers in particular.
LeinsterDub wrote: » This isn't news we've been planning for 2 years
bilston wrote: » A second referendum could be very dangerous. While it may become the only option, I think other alternatives need to be looked at first...and I say that as a Remainer. A narrow Remain victory could leave some very angry people out there who might mobilise behind the likes of Yaxley Lennon.
bilston wrote: » First try and get a Parliament in place whereby a majority for one outcome or the other exists. To do that you need a General Election. If that doesn't work then go back to the people.
The government has decided Theresa May’s Brexit deal is so disastrous that it has taken the desperate step of delaying its own vote at the eleventh hour. We have known for at least two weeks that Theresa May’s worst of all worlds deal was going to be rejected by parliament because it is damaging for Britain. Instead, she ploughed ahead when she should have gone back to Brussels to renegotiate or called an election so the public could elect a new government that could do so. We don’t have a functioning government. While Theresa May continues to botch Brexit, our public services are at breaking point and our communities suffer from dire under-investment. What renegotiation is he talking about? The time is up. Game over. Labour’s alternative plan for a jobs first deal must take centre stage in any future talks with Brussels.
briany wrote: » If the people of the UK cannot broadly agree on whether the UK should leave the EU or not, and they're supposed to elect MPs who represent their views, then how can the UK have a parliament who finds itself in broad agreement? And so long as both main parties are compromised by the Brexit division, they see that weakness as a chance to wrest power from the other, lessening still the ability of the UK parliament to find broad agreement. I think the only thing that their parliament could broadly agree on (ERG contingent aside) is that they don't want to be held accountable for a no deal. Therefore, if May does hold a vote on her deal and it fails, the only real option left seems to be to put a Remain/No Deal vote back to the people. At least that way, the fallout can sit somewhat more on the public than its politicians.
McGiver wrote: » Not unless it's decided by a referendum. But I agree regardless of the outcome, the country remains divided and politically broken. And the Brexiteers won't go away ever, they'll keep poisoning the British politics. While important issues are not addressed (NHS, austeriry, stagnating wages, immigration reform, poverty, inequality, backward regions, constitutional arrangement etc.).
seamus wrote: » It's not been that private at all tbh. Coveney and Varadkar have been talking for months about working towards a good while also preparing for Brexit. I expect plenty of the finer details have been kept low-key, especially anything being put in place along the border regions. Over the weekend I was speaking to two Irish fund-type people who work in London, who've said that they've been out the door busy with companies shoring up their financial situation; renewing financing deals, transferring assets etc now. Nobody wants to be caught short in March, they're placing their bets now and just seeing what happens. Apparently Jan-March is usually their busy time (before the UK year end I suppose), but they have comparatively very little work lined up for the new year 2019. This is all the stuff happening in the background that the media isn't really talking about. Seems like the most likely outcome tbh. A referendum has too much room for conflict. One way or another, one "side" gets what they want, the other gets ignored. A general election, while it would by default be a new Brexit referendum, at least nobody on either side would feel "unrepresented" by the outcome.
briany wrote: » If the people of the UK cannot broadly agree on whether the UK should leave the EU or not, and they're supposed to elect MPs who represent their views, then how can the UK have a parliament who finds itself in broad agreement? And so long as both main parties are compromised by the Brexit division, they see that weakness as a chance to wrest power from the other, lessening still the ability of the UK parliament to find broad agreement.
McGiver wrote: » Corbyn as deluded as the Tories.
Rjd2 wrote: » I think a second vote makes more sense than a general election. Its likely that many MPS will be returned and their stance will be the exact same as it was in 2017. You will still have the same divisions in both parties regarding MPS and voters.
Water John wrote: » Hard core Brexiteers have less than 10% of MPs.
Water John wrote: » Hard core Brexiteers have less than 10% of MPs. They should, like all hard right parties in Europe, not left near the levers of power.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The calls for an election from Labour are simply a ploy to get into power. That's it. The better Brexit rhetoric is simply nonsense. We know the outcomes now. Gardiner's prattling last night on Channel 4 just shows how desperate Labour is to have its cake and eat it.
McGiver wrote: » Exactly, and that's kind of a normal state, about 10%. They need to be isolated, exposed and driven out by systematic challenge and opposition. BBC is highly complicit in not doing this at all, all their lies are left unchallenged in the sake of "balance". Lies and fantasies unsupported by facts (or many times supported by lies) are still lies and cannot ever balance the truth. This is not difference of opinions based on facts, this is lies vs facts.
serfboard wrote: » But Ref1 only passed because of obscenely unchallenged lies, promises of (NHS) jam tomorrow, less foreign-types about the place etc. etc.
serfboard wrote: » It's Ref2 with three options (pick one) for me: Deal, No Deal, Remain. Yes, people will be disaffected. But Ref1 only passed because of obscenely unchallenged lies, promises of (NHS) jam tomorrow, less foreign-types about the place etc. etc. Now that the public can actually see what's involved, they can properly decide. Leavers promised you a brand new Ferrari Testarossa - instead they're now offering you either a sh1tty Mark 1 Ford Escort, or a Lada with no engine, and telling you to take your pick.
briany wrote: » You can't have a referendum with 3 options because you invite the potential scenario where Remain wins but only has an explicit mandate from, say, 40 percent of the electorate. You better believe that every single Brexiteer of influence would have a year of field days with that. And Remainers would make a similar political noise if Leave won with 40 percent. Maybe in a less-charged issue you could have 3 choices, but not this one.
briany wrote: » You can't have a referendum with 3 options because you invite the potential scenario where Remain wins but only has an explicit mandate from, say, 40 percent of the electorate. You better believe that every single Brexiteer of influence would have a year of field days with that. And Remainers would make a similar political noise if Leave won with 40 percent. Disaffected wouldn't be a strong enough adjective for the level of anger when a clear minority gets to decide the course of the UK, possibly for the foreseeable future. Maybe in a less-charged issue you could have 3 choices, but not this one.
serfboard wrote: » It's Ref2 with three options (pick one) for me: Deal, No Deal, Remain.
