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.
Leroy42 wrote: » Inquitus wrote: » The thing is from an Irish perspective she's better than all the Tory alternatives as it stands, if she goes we likely get a Brexiteer, or even Brexit Extremist. I don't buy that. What difference would a 'true' brexiteer have made? They are hurtling towards No deal, at the very least TM has delayed that from being the only route. The likes of Johnson etc would probably have triggered no deal at this stage. TM has been woeful in many respects, but in terms of the actual deal that she managed to get from the EU I think she did pretty well. Apart from those decrying the backstop, I have yet to hear any cogent argument about what is wrong with the current deal (as opposed to not liking parts of it) and what changes they would realistically make. Try harder is not really a policy.
Inquitus wrote: » The thing is from an Irish perspective she's better than all the Tory alternatives as it stands, if she goes we likely get a Brexiteer, or even Brexit Extremist.
seamus wrote: » I'm no fan of May, but to claim that the merits of the Brexit deal depend on who is presenting it, is to ignore the fact that there are some for whom no deal will ever be good enough.
Akrasia wrote: » Its only a matter of time now before Labour issue a motion of no confidence in the government and try to have a general election, but I don't think the EU should allow an extension to Article 50 if Labour campaign on the platform of renegotiating the deal that the EU already consider to be negotiated. So they'll have a choice to either campaign on offering a 2nd referendum, or campaign on withdrawing Article 50
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Farage & co. aren't going to riot, they will write grumpy letters to the Times and pretend to stop buying Champagne in protest.
Infini wrote: » There's also one other thing to consider as well: She's said she wont contest the next general election. If Labour submit's a No Confidence Motion those 117 could vote against their own party in order to force her out by an election even if it's risking their seats as well.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » She also apologised to the Irish people for Tory behaviour over the past two years and its effect on Ireland. One of very few British politicians to acknowledge the fact that Brexit will damage Ireland.
EdgeCase wrote: » Looking at the analysis this morning, there's still a huge problem with May's security of tenure. There's likely to be a parliamentary motion of no confidence when (and I don't think it's if) she comes back with assurances from the EU that won't be accepted by the ERG and DUP. The best the EU will offer to her is some kind of words of comfort type text. I think you're looking at a general election in January.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Gavin Esler made a good point on the Sean O'Rourke Show on RTE Radio 1 this morning. If people think a second referendum will be "divisive", how divisive would it be that a deal that few want is pushed through by a zombie Prime Minister in charge of a total shambles of a government? How divisive would a no deal Brexit be? How divisive would economic chaos and massive job losses be? How divisive was the referendum in the first place? Remember, the Brexiteers are the people who pushed to introduce division in the first place. Their "solutions" are the most divisive of all. But there is no solution which will not be massively divisive. I wouldn't normally give any praise to Margaret Thatcher, but she does deserve praise for opposing the introduction of the concept of a referendum in British politics in 1975, because she foresaw that a referendum such as this one could lead to chaos. That genie is out of the bottle now, however. The least worst solution there is now, is to hold a second referendum which overturns the result of the first.
seamus wrote: » Related, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that part of a Scottish parliament bill was effectively unenforceable because it attempts to supersede Westminster.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46522969 Basically the Scottish parliament passed a pre-emptive bill effectively transcribing EU law into Scottish law. The Withdrawal Act passed by Westminster after this, conflicts (partially) with it. The UK SC ruled today that Scottish law cannot supersede or disable the laws made by Westminster, so that part of the Scottish Act is not valid. It seems to be downplayed by the UK media, but Nicola Sturgeon has actually welcomed this ruling as "vindicating" the bill passed by Scotland. I'm guessing what she means is that, "This ruling proves that Scotland was right to pass this bill, because we knew Westminster would screw us over". These are the little things that will drive the push for Scottish independence. Nothing to get the Gaelic blood boiling like being told what you can't do. I'd say we're looking at a second indyref in 2019, with or without Westminster's assent.
Inquitus wrote: » You make a good point, all of the available options are divisive, which is why a 2nd referendum should not be ruled out on that basis. I think its the best way forward, but it could be a crap shoot.
flatty wrote: » She actually said she didn't intend to, not won't. Michael D used not standing for a second term as a major plank in his election campaign, and still noone raised an eyebrow when surprise surprise he changed his mind.
hill16bhoy wrote: » It would be massively divisive. And people shouldn't kid themselves - all the disinformation and hateful rhetoric that was there before would be there again. But at least the question would be more defined than before. And crucially, it offers a way out of the mess. There would be an almighty mess to clean up at the end of it, but it still offers a legitimate way out of that mess. Nothing else does.
Water John wrote: » Parliament, except 60 Brexiteers won't countenance a Crash out Brexit. Parliament will extend Art 50.
Water John wrote: » JRM put it badly, but Soubry put it correctly, TM lost the majority of her back benchers. We can thank Grieve and Millar that Parliament now has the option of extending Art 50 and also forcing a 2nd Ref.
Laois_Man wrote: » If they get a hard Brexit, what would he do with himself for the rest of his life (besides go into hiding if things get really really bad)?
Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: » i personally think the whole border issue has been overblown. does anyone REALLY care if you had to show your passport or some other form of ID on those biannual trips to NI to buy your cheap booze?
Enzokk wrote: Article 50 can only be extended with with the consent of the EU so even if they wanted to it is not clear if this will happen. Parliament can vote for anything but with regards to article 50 there has to be agreement with the EU for most things, other than cancelling it.
Thatnastyboy wrote: » The folk who's homes & businesses straddle the border might have something to say about it being 'overblown', and I wager they do REALLY care.
DOCARCH wrote: » Naive to think that the only people who cross the border are on cheap booze trips! Aside from business, and people who live/work either side of the border, there are families whose kids go to school the other side of the border. Passport checks on the way to school/work may be a little inconvenient.
Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: » but we are now in the crazy position where the 5th largest world economy is facing grave damage (as is Ireland and the rest of the EU to a lesser extent) all because we do not wish to discommode a few farmers on the border!??!
joe40 wrote: » Thousands of people cross the border everyday, I'm one of them. I don't think there will be a return to violence of the scale witnessed before but border infrastructure will be attacked/damaged. It will be destabilising and an extremely regressive step in light of the advances of GFA.Remember the DUP never supported the GFA, they did not take part in the negotiations. They would love to see a physical border again
