Winters wrote: » IF this had been fully understood then the Tories should never have signed a C&S with the DUP.
Enzokk wrote: » Here is link to their live video and you can go back on the video. Do you mean the Guido Fawkes guy?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOacA3RYrXk
lawred2 wrote: » how far back?
LeinsterDub wrote: » Unless you're speaking Irish , the name of our country is Ireland. I'd wager you don't refer to Spain as España
lawred2 wrote: » Ultimately despite all the platitudes - Westminster doesn't give that much of a toss about the DUP's fears of being pushed further away from the union.
downcow wrote: » �� this really sums up the prejudice we are dealing with. I made an honest mistake which I for absolutely no political agenda and lensterdub gets very upset. I ignore the continual reference to my country as ‘the north’ which is loaded with political agenda. And of course we are the bigots up in the black north ��. And I have genuinely learnt something. I thought the country on the south of the island was called Rep of Ireland. A serious question, Who started this Rep of ire business if it’s not true and is it offensive? As I honestly try not to offend
murphaph wrote: » Did Corbyn just table a motion of no confidence in May?
setanta1000 wrote: » Ah I wouldn't get too hung up on it - technically the official name of the 26 counties of Ireland is either Eire (in Irish) or Ireland (in English), so technically you weren't wrong to call it Eire (the front of my passport says Eire and Ireland); however, in my experience the word Eire is rarely used in Ireland and most people now use the Republic of Ireland in conversation with non Irish people to distinguish from the geographical island of Ireland and this is from the 1949 Republic of Ireland Act that said the state should be called the Republic of Ireland - if all that makes sense. Don't let that deter you from sharing your view of Brexit on this forum - good debate needs opposing voices to be worthwhile - as long as both sides are civil and can agree to debate specific points.
murphaph wrote: » Did Corbyn just table a motion of no confidence in May? Inquitus wrote: » It seems so, per the Beeb.
Inquitus wrote: » It seems so, per the Beeb.
Labour had threatened to force a confidence vote in the PM if she did not set a date for the vote.
Tell me how wrote: » No.They threatened a vote. Typical Labour non-action as per the norm over the last few years.
downcow wrote: » �� this really sums up the prejudice we are dealing with. I made an honest mistake which I for absolutely no political agenda and lensterdub gets very upset. I ignore the continual reference to my country as ‘the north’ which is loaded with political agenda. And of course we are the bigots up in the black north ��. And I have genuinely learnt something. I thought the country on the south of the island was called Rep of Ireland. A serious question, Who started this Rep of ire business if it’s not true and is it offensive? As I honestly try not to offend
Enzokk wrote: » That was earlier, it does seem as if he has tabled a motion of no-confidence now. Ross Kempsell - "Labour just spent last few hours claiming it got what it wanted by ‘forcing’ the PM to reveal vote date - therefore no need for no confidence Now they have tabled motion of no confidence in her anyway"
downcow wrote: » 😂 this really sums up the prejudice we are dealing with. I made an honest mistake which I for absolutely no political agenda and lensterdub gets very upset. I ignore the continual reference to my country as ‘the north’ which is loaded with political agenda. And of course we are the bigots up in the black north 😂. And I have genuinely learnt something. I thought the country on the south of the island was called Rep of Ireland. A serious question, Who started this Rep of ire business if it’s not true and is it offensive? As I honestly try not to offend
Tell me how wrote: » For the love of god. They don't even have confidence in their motion of no confidence. What happens if they do table it? Will it be held immediately? What happens if the motion is upheld? Does it mean a GE?
Strazdas wrote: » I think both Ireland and Republic of Ireland are perfectly acceptable.Apparently Republic of Ireland is the legal name of the state and Ireland is the constitutional name (I know, we're splitting hairs here).
LeinsterDub wrote: » Republic of ireland is just a description of the the state's form of government. Like calling the UK the constitutional monarchy of Great Britain and North Ireland and don't get me started on the BBC using Irish republic
Laois_Man wrote: » All its going to do is embarrass May - if she loses it She doesn't have to resign and no General Election as it's not a no confidence vote in the Government.
downcow wrote: » It sounds like it is not me has the problem there. You have a bit to be getting on with lensterdub. A big chip needs removed and I am share there are sound reasons why you are carrying it. Thanks to all of you who put my mind at ease re ROI, Ire, Eire or whatever ðŸ‘
seamus wrote: » May is basically holding the UK to ransom with her dates. It's her deal or no deal. Once we hit 14th January, there's no time for anything else. No time for an alternate deal. No time for a general election. No time for a referendum. Talk of using the time to get assurances from the EU is all lies to delay any possible alternative from being tabled.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Interesting Sky poll just out. 31% of people think May is the best person to lead Britain through Brexit. Unsurprisingly, only 24% think Corbyn is best. Labour really have missed their opportunity. Regarding Brexit, 54% want to remain, 32% want to crash out., 14 % want May's deal. The tide might definitely be turning but a split remains.
Thargor wrote: » This is a 100% Tory sh1tshow, well Tories and their rightwing media cronies, why on Earth would Labour want to jump into the breach and take all the blame just as it gets really bad? Let the Tories own it all the way and hopefully it will lead to real change when people see their standards of living slipping.