Bit cynical wrote: » I know the talks recently concluded were labelled the divorce talks but in reality many areas of a future relationship were discussed. The backstop, for example, refers to a future relationship between the UK and the EU. No reason why trade should not have been discussed also. Had some progress been made on trade other areas of discussion might have been easier. Splitting of the talks into two parts, the first of which must conclude with agreement before the next starts was arbitrary and artificial. Pretty sure meetings were held fairly early on among the EU27 to determine the EU's position in negotiations.
Tell me how wrote: » I wonder how are their ministers treated in the halls and canteen of West Minister when others run in to them. I suspect many know that they are in the position they are in in solely because of how the chips fell in the last GE and that they are not even representing the majority in their country. Still, I don't suspect it bothers them. Wilson, Dodds, Paisley, have thick skins.
tuxy wrote: » No worries, the most interesting and sad thing about the vote was that the motion would have passed by 1 vote if the DUP voted the other way(of course they never would)Now the DUP are very smug about how much power they have and it shows in their ridiculous statements.
Seth Brundle wrote: » No they couldn't have. You can't make deals with a current member. How could a trade deal be agreed when the UK didn't and still doesn't know what kind of relationship it wants to have with the EU? How will NI be treated in any trade deal?
What meetings were held without the UK being offered an invite?
Leroy42 wrote: » Both absolutely right, I made a right mare of that.
Tell me how wrote: » Think she won it by 19
tuxy wrote: » The no confidence vote in TM last year was just for the Tory party. No other party could vote in that. The vote of no confidence in the Government on Tuesday had a 19 vote majority.
gooch2k9 wrote: » I'm just reading a BBC article about what the DUP wants out of all this(link). The first line states they voted with the government and upheld their side of the S&C agreement. Surely the vote against the WA broke the terms of this agreement? The agreement itself states they will vote with the government on votes concerning the exit from the EU.
Leroy42 wrote: » Well, TM won the NC motion by 1 vote, so if the 7 SF had been there then they would have. I my point is that in such a scenario, 7 Labour or LibDems would have as they can't have SF make the difference. So all this talk of SF is moot, IMO.
Leroy42 wrote: » Well, TM won the NC motion by 1 vote, so if the 7 SF had been there then they would have. I my point is that in such a scenario, 7 Labour or LibDems would have as they can't have SF make the difference.
tuxy wrote: » No one would have to cross the floor because the DUP have more seats than SF
Leroy42 wrote: » Basically, narrow self interest won the day. Were SF to be seen to have the balance of power you can be sure that many would cross the floor just to avoid having them have any actual impact.
RobMc59 wrote: » I've said before that SF should take their seats in Westminster as there will never be a chance like this again to have a major say in proceedings-as it is the DUP proping up TM could be the reason for a hard brexit.
Text of Oath of Allegiance wrote: I (name). do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.
EdgeCase wrote: » Their official line over recent decades has been "critical engagement" with the EU rather than Euroscepticism. It looks to me that as SF engaged more in Europe they found there were parties with similar outlooks and they could work from within the system, rather than adopting a UKIP style of nationalism. At the end of the the day, SF are a nationalist party so it's going to follow that they've ideologies that are nationalist which would tend to include being quite critical of multilateralism and globalisation. To be fair to SF, they've come a long way even since the 90s and came through the whole GFA process, which is a lot more than could be said for the DUP. I'd tend to adopt a similar stance with them : critical engagement, rather than just writing them off though.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Sceptical at times?! Understatement if I've ever heard one! SF have been dead set against all European treaties that I can remember. Cut from the same cloth as Corbyn, they have traditionally seen the EU as standing in the way of socialist part the 32 county socialist Utopia they want to create.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Pure nonsense and you have contradicted yourself neatly. UKIP members were actively campaigning to leave long before a ref was allowed SF have never advocated leave but are self admittedly sceptics at times. That's part of any healthy democracy. I voted against Lisbon 1 myself and would also be sometimes critical but would never advocate Leave
correct horse battery staple wrote: » They didnt campaign to leave as it was not on offer, but they are/were very anti EU, especially last Lisbon referenda, doing everything to pull us in the other direction away from EU My point still stands the EU has done more to help people of this island in this Brexit mess than SF who are cribbing and moaning from sidelines and not performing their democratic duty of democratically representing the people of this island Here are some anti EU gems from SFhttps://imgur.com/a/qet0JFi Swap SF for UKIP and same arguments being made with an Irish twist, hell even same colours
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.
tuxy wrote: » The DUP was the only major party in the north to oppose the GFA so no suprise there. Arlene Foster now claims that Ireland never had a hard border only a few checks here and there to detect criminal activity.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well it is too late now, but I think the EU and the UK could have discussed future trade during the two years of A50.
Bit cynical wrote: » This has already happened in other areas of the process where you have had the EU27 leaders meeting without the UK.
tuxy wrote: » Arlene Foster now claims that Ireland never had a hard border only a few checks here and there to detect criminal activity.
Leroy42 wrote: » It has to change? Why? How can the EU hold trade talks with a country that is still a member? Country look for trade talks when they want to increase trade, not reduce it. And you can possibly have UK reps working on the EU side in a negotiation with the UK, with UK MEP's having a vote on any EU deal? It makes no sense. And all because the UK cannot face up to their own responsibilities
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I think if the DUP could they would tear up the Good Friday Agreement. They seem to be against all forms of progress and would happily drag this island back 50 years at least.
