joe40 wrote: » There are no good options in all of this, but the best would be a WA with the backstop. However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts. From a Pragmatic approach would it not be better to agree to a time limited backstop, say 5 years. The common consensus is that the backstop won't be necessary in event of FTA. I know it is conceding ground and I realise a time limited backstop isn't really a backstop, but if the alternative is "no deal" which will mean a border anyway why not concede this. Maybe that's why I'm not a negotiator, but this does seem to be a high stakes game of chicken.
seamus last week wrote: » If it goes this way, then I'm just going to give up trying to guess what happens next.
joe40 wrote: » However if that can't be delivered the option of a no -deal will be disastrous for Ireland by all accounts.
josip wrote: » No deal for Ireland is expected to be difficult, not disastrous. Disastrous is what's expected for the UK in the event of a no deal.
Berserker wrote: » Not at all. Look at all the experts on this thread who are telling us that there will be a small dip; nothing like the UK and all sunshine and roses then.
robinph wrote: » 5 years isn't anywhere near long enough considering how long it's taken to get to this point. Absolute minimum of 10 years, so that includes at least two governments getting the opportunity to come up with an alternative, and the clock should only start ticking from the moment that the backstop happens to be implemented. Best though would be to say yes to the time li One eyed Jack wrote: » You’re perfectly entitled to believe what you want. However if you want to convince anyone else of your beliefs, then the onus is upon you to present evidence to support your hypothesis. I have considered the evidence both for and against the idea of intelligence based upon race, and concluded that the idea of intelligence based upon race has about as much credibility as assumptions about people’s intelligence based upon whether or not they are religious. (that’s a load of nonsense too btw) mit, but make it 99 years and then send May back to the UK with the time limit but it's so long that it really makes no difference to anything.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You’re perfectly entitled to believe what you want. However if you want to convince anyone else of your beliefs, then the onus is upon you to present evidence to support your hypothesis. I have considered the evidence both for and against the idea of intelligence based upon race, and concluded that the idea of intelligence based upon race has about as much credibility as assumptions about people’s intelligence based upon whether or not they are religious. (that’s a load of nonsense too btw)
seamus wrote: » So, I'm frankly stunned by the predictions of a landslide defeat tonight. I mean, what next? 3 days to go get a "new" deal? How can she achieve anything in 3 days? A general election? Then what? The same deal with a Labour badge on it? A hard Brexit? A new referendum or just "cancelling" Brexit will result in blood running in the streets. Jo Cox was murdered during the tension of the first ref. How many people would die if a second ref, a much more divisive/vitriolic one, came to pass? My optimistic heart wants to believe that someone in Westminster knows whats going on here. They know the political game that's being played against May which will resolve itself when she's ousted. But my logical brain cannot see any plan, or game, nor anyone who has any semblance of knowing what's going on.
seamus wrote: » So, I'm frankly stunned by the predictions of a landslide defeat tonight. I mean, what next? 3 days to go get a "new" deal? How can she achieve anything in 3 days?
Thomas_IV wrote: » I see your point, but a time limited backstop doesn't remove the Problem of the border, unless it is explicit dealt with in a FTA.
Seth Brundle wrote: » I think many of them genuinely believe that the EU will come running to them with various better offers.
Tell me how wrote: » Completely disagree. He has been an elected MEP for 20 years.Echo chambers serve no purpose.
Tell me how wrote: » Completely disagree. He has been an elected MEP for 20 years. Echo chambers serve no purpose.
Berserker wrote: » The UK is not making an issue out of the hard border. Nobody on that side has any interest in having a hard border on the island of Ireland. The DUP don't want one either. If the EU is happy to have no border on the island then there is nothing to worry about on that front.
john9876 wrote: » Maybe wishful thinking because I live in the UK but I think it will end with another referendum and remain winning. That's the direction the mood seems to be turning towards. The longer it drags on the more likely that's what will happen. Obviously some people will be very upset but sanity has to prevail.
Thomas_IV wrote: » I think that it does serve a purpose cos Farage, BoJo et al have been in there for the past 2 1/2 years.
Leroy42 wrote: » So not questioning people that have been shown to have lied/been wrong in the past is the price to pay for hearing from all sides? The people need the media, just as much as the media needs them. Compare Tony Robinson to Farage. One has been the darling of the media the other is kept at arms length. Everyone does not simply deserve a platform. Make your point, and be prepared to be challenged, either in debate or by the interviewer. If one if found to be lying or clueless then they shouldn't be brought back. Farage has been both. What possible reason is there to listen to his side, it is simply made up drivel based on nothing more than his own opinion.
Akrasia wrote: » It's actually ridiculous that they're even allowing amendments to the withdrawal agreement at this late stage.
Tell me how wrote: » Bring them on and challenge them appropriately. They're going to appear on stations friendly to their position anyway. Would be a mistake to just let the only footage of them on Twitter and so on to be of them presenting false points and being unchallenged.
GM228 wrote: » In case anyone missed them, details of the four amendments John Bercow chose here:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/15/the-amendments-mps-must-deal-with-before-final-brexit-votehttps://twitter.com/Ryan_Kennealy/status/1085162764824326144?s=19
John Bercow said the proposals selected are: - Amendment A: Labour's bid to reject Mrs May's deal and "pursue every option" to prevent the UK leaving the EU with no deal. - Amendment K: The SNP wants to reject the Brexit deal. It also calls on the UK Government to "respect the will" of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly in rejecting the Brexit deal. - Amendment B: Conservative former minister Edward Leigh's proposal noting the Irish border backstop is temporary and calls for the UK government to give notice on 1 January 2022 that it will terminate the Withdrawal Treaty if it becomes clear that the EU will not agree to remove the backstop. - Amendment F: Tabled by Tory MP John Baron. It seeks to give the UK the right to terminate the Irish border backstop without the agreement of the EU. Votes are expected from 7pm.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Still coming out with that old chestnut
Tell me how wrote: » Bring them on and challenge them appropriately. They're going to appear on stations friendly to their position anyway.Would be a mistake to just let the only footage of them on Twitter and so on to be of them presenting false points and being unchallenged.
Leroy42 wrote: » But they don't accept being challenged, they cry BIAS is they are asked questions. They want to skew the media to their aim rather than face a fair media (and that includes getting soft interviews as well) But if they will only accept media interviews if they are not asked certain questions, if they only will do one-on-one, then they are not accepting the reeal purpose of the media, they are simply using it as a mounthpiece. Of course you cannot stop them from using Twitter etc, but everyone has access to that, doesn't mean we all get to be main players. The media still plays a massive part in legitimising certain people. Farage was undoubtedly helped by his huge number of appearances on QT etc.
Berserker wrote: » Yeah, it's called reality. I'll change it when the UK comes out and says it wants a hard border on the island.
Thomas_IV wrote: » I don't use Twitter or Facebook as a matter of principle as they are both in my view anti-social media, given what sort of hatespeech and other crap is posted on their sites and neither of them gives much of efforts to get a grip on that.
