seamus wrote: » I think it's quite the opposite tbh. The UK are trying to insist on having no backstop and instead just an agreement about what next with the border. We know the Brits too well, their insistence on no backstop is so that they can have the freedom to renege on any border agreement without consequence. The argument over the backstop is essentially the UK looking to be let off the hook over their GFA obligations, and Ireland and the EU insisting that it can't be permitted. If they leave with no deal, then they will (eventually) be in breach of the GFA. There's not a whole lot we can do to prevent that, but there are machinations available to respond to it.
EdgeCase wrote: » What worries me about the GFA is that a lot of its moral authority over the UK Government is in the sensible side of politics in the US. The Dems in particular (due to the Clinton direct involvement) but also the centre of the Republican party, had a major weight to bear on the UK.I would suspect Trump won't give a flying fiddlers what happens as it's 'overseas'.
Thomas_IV wrote: » Sure and for assuming that there are plenty of other examples that just prove your point. Just to think about his attitude towards NATO etc..
Adamcp898 wrote: » Corbyn speaking at the moment......
EdgeCase wrote: » Well he hates multilateralism and seems to have it in for the EU and particularly Germany for some reason. Also, I would suspect he may attempt to roast us on our trade balance with the US, which is distorted as we're a gateway into the single EU market. It would be like the EU taking aim at a particular US gateway state. However, I think there's a huge problem as the GFA came from an era when the UK had very pragmatic domestic politics under Major and then Blair and when the US was still sane and it's an example of where US diplomacy and foreign policy actually played a very strongly positive role. It's in a very precarious place right now as the GFA effectively used modern multilateralism to resolve the NI situation by making the differences in identity not matter.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table. The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition...
Thomas_IV wrote: » Had a quick look at BBC News. It's the usual talk he has, call for a GE. Looks that he's pondering on on this and when he loses that as well, then he should just pack in and resign as leader of the LP cos the result of a snap GE might not go his way and Labour lose more seats than it has now. Just like May was gambling in 2017 and lost her solid majority provided by Cameron. Maybe the LibDems would win on his expence. Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The EU could let them exit into transition rather than extend article 50 on the basis that they either remain or ratify the withdrawal agreement within say 6 to 9 months.By having the UK formally outside of the institutions during this period it would be less complicated for the EU elections. It would also mean that they would technically have to rejoin. This would force the UK population to decide if they want to be part of the full EU with no option outs or do their own thing.
Adamcp898 wrote: » Yep, just finished. Not a whole lot has changed. Calling for a people's vote is the very last option
Thomas_IV wrote: » Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.
Berserker wrote: » Why would it be the worst? Would a Tory majority not be an improvement on the current situation?
Thomas_IV wrote: » No it wouldn't cos that would also mean more austerity for the future.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table. Agreed - if that was the will of a significant majority in parliament. There isn't a significant majority presently. The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition... His position is interesting. I think he's playing a very dangerous game if he wants to stay as leader and potential PM. Politically, however bad things are presently, they will probably become much worse very quickly. While this will almost certainly lead to a fractured Tory party, it will also expose serious divisions within the Labour party. Considering that a large majority of Labour members and voters are pro EU, Corbyn's closet Eurosceptism, and his dissembling at a time when Labour needs strong leadership that reflects the wishes of the party, will place him in a very precarious position very soon.
I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table.
The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition...
Berserker wrote: » And a Labour government post Brexit wouldn't lead to austerity?
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Brexit also poses a serious problem for SF here in Ireland come the EU elections, doing their usual anti EU eurosceptic dance copying lines from UKIP wont work this time around
Thomas_IV wrote: » I presume that the influence Momentum might have on him is already fading away.
MrMusician18 wrote: » The EU could let them exit into transition rather than extend article 50 on the basis that they either remain or ratify the withdrawal agreement within say 6 to 9 months. By having the UK formally outside of the institutions during this period it would be less complicated for the EU elections. It would also mean that they would technically have to rejoin. This would force the UK population to decide if they want to be part of the full EU with no option outs or do their own thing.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Agreed - if that was the will of a significant majority in parliament. There isn't a significant majority presently.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » His position is interesting. I think he's playing a very dangerous game if he wants to stay as leader and potential PM. Politically, however bad things are presently, they will probably become much worse very quickly. While this will almost certainly lead to a fractured Tory party, it will also expose serious divisions within the Labour party. Considering that a large majority of Labour members and voters are pro EU, Corbyn's closet Eurosceptism, and his dissembling at a time when Labour needs strong leadership that reflects the wishes of the party, will place him in a very precarious position very soon.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » It could be. I think most Parliamentarians are either resigned to Brexit or afraid to speak out for a new referendum for fear of antagonising voters and/or being labelled undemocratic. I know someone who works in Whitehall who's been telling me that Tory MP's are livid about the whole affair and what it means for their personal portfolios. Obviously anecdotal so up to you whether or not that's legit.
Enzokk wrote: » That point was raised by Owen Jones, if Labour would propose a second referendum then only 150-160 would support it in the party. He also mentioned that Labour is wary of upsetting the leave voters as well. The stupidity is that the current government is handcuffed by 70 ERG members and 10 DUP voters and Labour is handcuffed by the 31% of Labour voters that voted to leave in the referendum. The party is ignoring the majority of voices not to upset the minority in either party and that leads to chaos.
Nicola Sturgeon has said Theresa May is “deluding herself” by trying to persist with her Brexit red lines, and suggested details of the timetable for a second Scottish independence referendum would be revealed within “weeks”. The First Minister was at Westminster to meet with SNP MPs, and said an extension of Article 50 and a People’s Vote were the only realistic options to break the Brexit deadlock. However, she added: “I’ll say more about the timing of a referendum in the next matter of weeks. “I want to see the UK stay in the EU, I think that would be best for the whole of the UK... even when Scotland is independent, that serves our interests best as well. That’s why we’re backing the People's Vote, the second EU referendum. “But if that’s not possible, in terms of our wider interests, the chaos and the fiasco of the last couple of years have shown that the worst thing for Scotland is to be thirled to Westminster when it’s making such a mess of things. We’d be far better off in charge of our own affairs.” ...
Laois_Man wrote: » I haven't got a clue what the logic is behind all of this Brexit Plan B lark. It's nonsense! There are 5 options 1. No deal Exit 2. Accept May's deal An extension to Article 50 on the basis of...... 3. A second referendum 4. A UK offer to renegotiate, but with the red lines now on the table 5. Parliament withdraws article 50 and remains indefinitely Option 1 might happen by default - and not beyond possibility that it all becomes so disastrous, that there could be a referendum to re-join after they have left - or at least to rejoin the SM and CU in some way. Option 2 obviously can never happen now Option 3: The only way May would ever agree to a second referendum would be if the options on the ballot paper were both (or all) different forms of Brexit - i.e. no "Remain" option presented, as it has already been defeated. However, the EU will not grant an article 50 extension on the basis of that - So I don't see how a second referendum could happen under May's Tenure. Option 4 would probably be too close to a second referendum with a "remain" victory than would be acceptable to May. Option 5 could arguably happen is defiance of May, but probably wouldn't, arguably. So, like it or not, the only thing that is really likely to happen is 1 or 4 - They are the only so-called "Plan B" options possible. And the only way option 4 won't just lead back to option 1 all over again is if they do it the right way around at the second attempt and agree the trade deal before exiting, thus removing any mention of the word "backstop" from the WA - which is what should have been done in the first place. That leads to the real possibility that it would all drag out to beyond the 2022 election and beyond May's time in office, which she also wants to avoid as she sees this as her place in history. But the thing that was conspicuous by its absence from her speech last night was - when she asked others to set aside self interests, she should have said she is prepared to do the same. She didn't - because she isn't. In conclusion - IMO, whether it's option 1 or option 4, it is all heading for a no deal Brexit for as long as Teresa May is PM - and possibly as long as any Tory is PM for that matter.
lawred2 wrote: » thought the trade deal was not up for discussion until Britain left - during the transition phase
Laois_Man wrote: » That has to change! And I don't see why it can't!
