Akrasia wrote: » I don't think May/Brady will pass this amendment TBH. Yvette Cooper's amendment has some Tory support, so even if she hasn't the numbers to get her proposal through due to some Labour MPs opposing it, as long as more than 10 Tories vote against the Brady amendment they'll cancel out the DUP. If any Labour MPs vote in favour of the Brady amendment, they should lose the whip immediately. Theresa May might be safe as the leader of the Tory party until after Brexit, she is still a lame duck, in that she has already 'promised' that she will step down after brexit so when it comes to career Tory party backbenchers looking to secure promotion, at least some of them might bet that being seen to oppose No deal is in their strategic self interest and supporting Brady makes No Deal much more likely.
First Up wrote: » And we are getting on with dealing with it.
Hurrache wrote: » Steve Baker insisting that their plan is actually a backstop.
Professor Moriarty wrote: In as much as we can. Whatever happens, it won't be a positive for us.
First Up wrote: » I know that but what the British public thinks about it all doesn't matter a jot.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » He's right. A time-limited backstop.
Hurrache wrote: » Including what he calls "FTA Light" which will work just the same as the current VAT etc system works.
Adamcp898 wrote: I know it's tempting to just sit back and laugh at the fumbling ineptitude going on in Westminster but the stakes really are quite high for us as well.
First Up wrote: » We are not just sitting back and laughing at them. We are dealing with the parts we can do something about. I really don't care what the British public think now, or what they will think in a year or two.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Plus he mentions technology. They obviously have made a major breakthrough on that front. May will be explaining how it works in the HOC this afternoon.
Adamcp898 wrote: » I didn't say we weren't? That partial quote was directed at the general "**** the Brits" tone that crops up in this thread from time to time. We're still coming out of this losing too.
MrMusician18 wrote: » Fact checking cuts one way though with the Irish media, when it fits the narrative. No one pushes McDonagh of pavee point on the Traveller criminality problem, nor do they question why some people are up to 8-10 years in direct provision neglecting to mention the fact that they are there due to them taking endless appeals. Or media is just as biased.
Hurrache wrote: » So even with all the hype that the party is starting to come together, it's under the knowledge they actually know they're doomed to failure, it's theatrics.https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1090228993155100672
lawred2 wrote: » Well to be fair the fact that we are going to be f***ed without our consent or complicity kinda tends to result in tones and sentiments like "**** the Brits" Do you think wishing otherwise will leave us less f***ed?
Eurosceptic MPs have also tried to unilaterally amend the withdrawal agreement itself during the ratification process – an approach rebels are expected to repeat when the treaty soon returns to the Commons for a second vote. But the intervention by the European Parliament’s high-profile Brexit coordinator shows the pressure the EU side is under not to budge on UK demands from MEPs as well as its member states. “The European Parliament will not give its consent to a watered down Withdrawal Agreement,” Mr Verhofstadt told The Independent. “The deal we have is fair and cannot be re-negotiated. The backstop is needed because of UK red – lines and was crafted by the UK and the EU to secure the Good Friday Agreement. “We remain open to positive changes regarding the future relationship and it is time for a more consensual cross- party approach to deliver this.”
Adamcp898 wrote: » Thought it was blatantly obvious from my post where I lean on this particular sentiment, no? Or is it that we just want to yell it for the sake of it perhaps?
LuckyLloyd wrote: » You've cited two very niche low priority issues there tbh, for which you are demanding a particular editorial bent. And I'm fairly certain that traveller criminality or issue with direct provision have been reported in the Irish media over the past 15 years. I know I've read about travellers in court or pieces on direct provision legislation, etc anyway.
MrMusician18 wrote: » LuckyLloyd wrote: » You've cited two very niche low priority issues there tbh, for which you are demanding a particular editorial bent. And I'm fairly certain that traveller criminality or issue with direct provision have been reported in the Irish media over the past 15 years. I know I've read about travellers in court or pieces on direct provision legislation, etc anyway. Perhaps, but Casey got a huge vote (28% iirc) on the back of one remark that many saw as the first bit of truth on the Traveller issue and as two burned out hotels show you DP is a significant issue as well. I wouldn't call either of these niche tbh. They point I'm making is you don't see interviewers taking such a hard line on those topics, when hard questions are justified. Correcting farage is easy here when the ideas he pushes have little public support and have no support in the media. Make no mistake, I love seeing a take down of Farage but the idea that we have "a fine tradition of well informed and fact confident current affairs presenters with a sense of the importance of their role" is a total nonsense. The time for the Irish media to shine was during the financial crisis and it failed miserably. Just as the UK media has failed miserably over the past three years. Fine tradition of well informed, fact confident presenters me arse...
Adamcp898 wrote: I didn't say we weren't?
Skelet0n wrote: » This isn’t after hours lad.
VinLieger wrote: » People are rightfully annoyed at their absolute shambolic handling of this and the plain wanton ignorance of a majority of their populace that seems to be growing on a daily basis if polls are to be believed, I think the very fact that we are being dragged down unwillingly with them is enough of a reason for people in this country and this thread to be pissed at them and similarly be allowed to voice that frustration however they feel
lawred2 wrote: » I don't know really - think it's a concern for your own head. I don't see too much of it in this thread. But even if it were a central theme it wouldn't be an entirely unjustified central theme. I do see a lot of justified frustration at an abject self destructive political system in this thread however Your concerns are at bit Helen Lovejoyesque "Won't somebody please think of the children (Brits)"
