prawnsambo wrote: » Can you stockpile? I'm guessing no by the quantity and frequency of deliveries, but it would seem to be the logical alternative.
Hurrache wrote: » This is just brillianthttps://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1088695579293687810?s=19
Shelga wrote: » How has it come to this? How was an issue of this overwhelming complexity ever put to the people, with no plan whatsoever in the case of a Leave vote?What I find so unfair is that Leave voters chose to impose their will on millions of innocent people; to have an immediate and negative impact on their everyday lives as they go about their normal business. If you voted Yes in our referendum on the eighth amendment last May, your choice didn't have any impact whatsoever on the daily lives of the people who voted No. I know it's a totally different topic but it's the only recent parallel I can think of in our country. Same goes for the SSM referendum. Does the average Brexit voter not care about the impact their vote is having on business people, British nationals who live all over the EU, future students, people who work in universities, people who benefit from EU funding, etc etc? I struggle to accept that they really think this is going to benefit them. It was such an incredibly selfish, short-sighted, arrogant vote.
Bit cynical wrote: » But the GFA is not a treaty between the UK and the institution of the EU. The EU should have no business enforcing agreements at the member state level if one member is leaving, particularly if it is to the potential detriment of one of the remaining member states. To take your example, it could well be that that Hungary has some agreements with neighbouring countries and therefore leaving the EU might put those agreements under strain. But if the EU decided to use these agreements as a means of making life hard for Hungary, then we would not regard the EU as negotiating in good faith.
Leroy42 wrote: » Was it a poster on her, or maybe an interview posted on here, that said that the backstop wasn't the issue really. The reason the deal was rejected, and so comprehensively, was that leavers were finally confronted with the truth about Brexit. That no matter what way you looked at it, it was a worse deal then they currently have and that to get things back would take many years and lots of hard work. That went against everything they had sold the UK public and they were faced with the ramifications of that. SO the easiest thing to do was blame TM and EU rather than accept the reality. Changing the backstop won't solve that fundamental problem
road_high wrote: » Definitely some agenda going on- either foreign influence or anti FG stuff or both. I couldn’t care less about the party, this is all far more important to the nation- the last thing needed is a so called national paper of record continually trashing the country and our positions.
Enzokk wrote: » No, it is not making it hard to leave. The UK can leave but it cannot just forget its international obligations to the GFA. This is really simple and I have to wonder why we are getting stuck on this. If Hungary were to leave the EU it would be very simple because they have not signed an international treaty that maintains peace between two countries that relies on continued membership of the EU. They would negotiate the divorce bill and citizen rights and once that is done on the date of article 50 Hungary would leave and border would go up.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Let me guess without clicking through: - "sovereignty" - "undemocratic" - something about fisheries / agriculture policy (?) - "Britain first" ?
funkey_monkey wrote: » We are starting to sidetrack this thread. I certainly don't disagree about the DUP being an abhorrent party - I'm stuck in one of their 'safe seats' so I know all too well about them. Although, SF are no angels either. But let's not detail this thread.
Hurrache wrote: » Car crash interview with Tim Martin of Wetherspoons as to what his issues are with the EU.https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2019/jan/25/owen-jones-meets-tim-martin-wetherspoons-no-deal-brexit-poverty-wages-dont-ask-childish-questions-video
Hurrache wrote: » They're taking a different attacking approach today. I think someone needs to take a trip to the editors office to check they're not all being held in there by a Brexiteer expedition force.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » The Independent through some of it's false reporting in recent weeks has actually done some damage to Ireland's perceived position. The Independent had two headlines that were picked up in the UK press and run with. One was that Varadkar said to other party leaders at a meeting that checks would have to be put between the EU mainland and Ireland. Even Sinn Féin came out and said that was a completely false take. There was another one but can't think of it off my head. But both either total lies or incompetent journalism that Brexiteers seized on as showing division between us and the EU. Shoddy "journalism"
RobMc59 wrote: » I work in a Chemical facility and we use chemicals only available from Holland or Germany,we have tanker deliveries twice a week via Harwich of around 50,000 tonnes-I asked the Dutch driver what's been said to them about Brexit and he said the border customs at harwich said there maybe changes after 29th march but can't tell them anymore than that!-frightening!The driver predicts massive gridlock at the ports...
Hurrache wrote: » The Markets segment on Sky News are saying that sterling reached its high because of the reports in the Sun that the DUP have privately backed the deal. However if that backing is on the foundation that the backstop will be limited, it means nothing.
farmchoice wrote: » that is the question. personally id say she would get it passed, most of the soft brexit torys would have to back her or face ending their careers. even if a handful still voted against a similar number of labour rebels will probably vote with the government so it would be very close. if labour were to present a realistic alternative then perhaps, in particular a second ref with a labour whip to support it. in that case how many tory rebles would be needed, 6/8? off the top of my head, grieve, sourbry, nicky morgan, ken clarke, the younger johnson, antoinette sandbach, sarah wollenston and there are t least 3/4 more. then again they might just be relieved to get away from no deal, and at the end of the day may's deal is a good one all things considered.
prawnsambo wrote: » It's not really. In a situation where the stakes are so high, voting for a party that hasn't a hope of being in government in a system that just doesn't give seats to minority parties is seen as a wasted vote. So it's possible government against possible government and devil take the hindmost. Labour or Tory or spoiled vote effectively.
Mezcita wrote: » The Lib Dems continued poor performance is interesting though. I would have thought that they would have gained more support by being anti Brexit.
john9876 wrote: » if the DUP & the brexiteers support Mays deal, will it pass? Or are there enough remainers who will still vote against it to defeat it?
Inquitus wrote: » I get the feeling that given the disaster that Brexit is, and has been, for 2 years, they feel emboldened by the fact this hasn't translated into any meaningful change in the Polls. It may be arrogance, but I think they assume no matter what they do they have a good chance of keeping #10 regardless, with Corbyn at the helm of Labour.
MrMusician18 wrote: » That doesn't stand up to scrutiny since no deal is many times worse than Mays deal.
