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.
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.
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.
Leroy42 wrote: » Both absolutely right, I made a right mare of that.
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?
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.
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.
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.
gmisk wrote: » I can tell you now as someone from Norn Iron they will not give a single toss, in fact they will wear it as a badge of honour and it will likely play well to their voting base. "We showed it to them in westminister yeeeeoh"
FreudianSlippers wrote: » No, the backstop is a fall-back position past 2020 (is it still 2020?) if a trade deal cannot be reached. It's not really correct to call it a discussion of a "future relationship"
FreudianSlippers wrote: » The only way the DUP gets what they want without a hard border is to remain in the EU.
Bit cynical wrote: » I think it is correct. It refers to a relationship/obligation that extends into the future (2020 and beyond). We only say it is not a future relationship because it is not part of the official "Future Relationship" talks. But like I say, this division is arbitrary and artificial.
Macy0161 wrote: » Or customs union and single market - EEA/ EEA-EFTA/ Single Market/ "Norway Plus"
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Irrelevant - the EU cannot, should not and will not negotiate a trade deal with a Member State of the EU. It's silly to even talk about it.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.
Macy0161 wrote: » The single option with the biggest mandate has always been remain!
Bit cynical wrote: » In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves. It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".
Bit cynical wrote: » However there is the small matter of a referendum that was held in the UK in 2016.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » None of which are really in the spirit of Brexit when it boils down to it. Unless the UK secretly really wants to be a rule-taker from the EU, but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.
wiggle16 wrote: » And even thicker skulls. The DUP is motivated solely by ideology, against the interests of the people they represent - and as you say, that's not even the majority of people in NI. No amount of logic or reason will change their outlook on things. May taking them on was one of her biggest blunders by far, it shut off way too many issues from negotiation. Their fear of NI's "Britishness" being eroded runs extremely deep for the DUP and their bedfellows. The traditionally Unionist segment of the population is in demographic decline compared to the Nationalist and non-partisan communities. They see this as an existential threat and therefore don't want any change of the current status quo in NI at all and if that means annihilating its economy they'll just close their eyes really tight as they get closer to the cliff's edge.
Macy0161 wrote: » But quote the rest of what I said! 52% didn't vote for crashing out. Even "no deal" can be split between cliff edge and managed exit.
intellectual dosser wrote: » The EU would run the risk of countries seeing what things would look like if they left the EU.
Sam Russell wrote: » If only we knew. We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo. No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda. Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.
Bit cynical wrote: » For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.
Macy0161 wrote: » I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Agreed. Foster has achieved two feats in her short career as leader of DUP - Brought about the indefinite suspension of the Stormont Assembly in her efforts to cling to power. And it looks like she will create a hard border with the south. That's not to mention the disastrous cash for ash scheme she pioneered.
Bit cynical wrote: » Can you elaborate a little on this please? What would this risk be? What would the countries see?
EdgeCase wrote: » The talk of SF taking their seats is absolute nonsense. It's just not going to happen. There are the numbers there if you could get the Tory Centre, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP and enough labour centrists. Personally, I think they're all too entrenched. It's not going to go anywhere.
