Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » I'm genuinely taken aback how much Europe has rowed in behind Ireland's position. Might have to pay for it down the road, we owe them.
Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: » I'm genuinely taken aback how much Europe has rowed in behind Ireland's position. Might have to pay for it down the road, we owe them. But they have been resolute and unshakeable on not putting a border on the island of Ireland. Britain has never given a crap about Ireland. The EU has held them to account. They have forced them to take responsibility for Northern Ireland. I hope all the people living in the border counties remember this loyalty if NI is given a free vote on an EU in/out referendum.
liamtech wrote: » No its not - ballot one is confirmatory - it is asking - Do you still wanna leave y/n
J Mysterio wrote: » UK politics is bloody insufferable. The ink on the 2nd deal negotiated with the EU has barely dried, and already people are thinking to just add ammendments to the deal to make it more palatable, including sensible commentators like Ian Dunt.https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1185878974448177152 Bill Cash, one of the most extreme EU haters to have ever lived, gave his support to the deal in the HOC yesterday on the proviso that various elements of the deal can be amended. What the hell is the story with this? The UK fundamentally don't get it. The EU and the UK have negotiated this deal, it is for them to ratify it, not continue negotiations with themselves on what was produced. It's infuriating.
liamtech wrote: » No its not - ballot one is confirmatory - it is asking - Do you still wanna leave y/n The second question - which only comes into effect if Leave wins above- is asking deal - or no deal I maintain its possible to do this , and its the only fair way
The high horse brigade wrote: » We'll be back to the EU looking for financial aid when we get a United Ireland. This is what they expect and they have dealt with similar in the unification of Germany
Seth Brundle wrote: » We owe them nothing. They stood firm to protect the integrity of the union. If they let a small country get damaged with no intervention to help then all other small member states would question the value ofbrheir membership. Don't get me wrong on how great bit is but the EU were never going to side with a dysfunctional leaver over a loyal member state.
Letwin_Larry wrote: » there will be no united ireland anytime soon (next 50 years at least) the Remainers aka Unionists will see to that.
The high horse brigade wrote: » It'll happen within 10 years, Brexit has brought it forward.
J Mysterio wrote: » The government simply cant offer a frickin No Deal to the electorate, its the height of irresponsibility. The UK have only ever mentioned it as a threat. Its like asking someone 'would you take this cyanide tablet?', when you know it will kill them, but they think it's largely a good idea but with some possible mild side affects.
J Mysterio wrote: » There should be no extension untill there is a vote on the deal, but Letwin has immediately obfustucated things. It would have been better to have fixed any loopholes in the Benn amendment than introduce Letwin. Letwin seems to draw things out interminibly and give MPs the impression they can edit the agreement in all areas. The EU want the UK to vote on the deal, and instead they immediately decide against and vote to analyze all the legislation. There's a fundamental arrogance in how the HOC is operating in relation to the EU.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Again though, why? Why are we jumping straight in to a united Ireland? It's our very own Brexit . All the talk of how everything will be grand, lets just do it with no discussion of the downsides.
Strazdas wrote: » Varadkar has said repeatedly that Irish unification would have to be done very slowly - a two or three year build up to a referendum with meticulous planning for what happens if it is passed (the complete opposite of what happened with the Brexit shambles). People are ignoring the elephant in the room that is Scottish independence though. If that happens, it is game over for NI. There's not a hope they could remain in the union long term if the UK is already breaking up. I predict they would be out within two or three years of Scottish independence.
The high horse brigade wrote: » Nobody said we should rush into it without discussion and planning. It's going to happen, we need to plan or we'll end up in the same boat not knowing what we want
J Mysterio wrote: » There's no way 'leave without a deal' should be put forward as an option.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Let NI go independent then too. See how they cope for a while as an actually country, then look at the possibility of unification if its what both countries want.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why in hell would you do that. We have 100 year's of hard evidence that it cannot govern itself because of the artificially constructed bias and an ideology that is trenchant in blocking any concessions to the minority population. Nonsense idea and wholly irresponsible.
RobMc59 wrote: » Even some hardened unionists admit the demographics are changing and people`s political views are moving towards the centre-why can`t the moderate people of NI have the chance to run their own show?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Dominic Grieve has said he thinks no deal should be on ballot so it does have some remain mp support. Though im not sure can you have something on a ballot that hadnt got through the house and i seriously doubt it would ever agree to it.
Strazdas wrote: » No, he's actually proposing Johnson's deal vs Remain on the ballot paper. I don't think he could possibly stand over No Deal being one of the options.
