Of course, it is always the option to take a knife and cut off your own hand as a demonstration of your english liberties.
it makes no sense, but voila, you insist on it.
That would be the first leader to be pursuing a policy that would only make things completely worse for the country.
Still doesn’t meet the mandate. Leave said there’d be no downside. Leaving without downsides is the only Brexit that meets the referendum mandate.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It’s absolutely true. Nearly all discussion before the referendum was for some degree of soft or “Norway-style” brexit. No deal is NOT what the public voted for.
Is that the thread you’ve stopped posting in, because you kept disproving your own arguments? :smack:
Not as far as I can find out - it was also posted by Rev. Richard Coles
Very true - and more so because the &#%$ing Brexit referendum was only supposed to be advisory. Somewhere along the line somebody took it to mean mandatory. But nobody has the balls to put the matter to a vote again. None of the parties has a clear stance on the matter. I assume that Corbyn won’t make a clear statement because it would anger certain factions in the invariably faction-torn Labour party and because he does not see it as an election-winning issue.
As stated elsewhere, the current government is a coalition that includes the retards from Northern Ireland, and the numbers are so close that they need to be courted.
May was put up for PM because nobody wanted to be saddled with the obvious forthcoming failure, but equally because the Conservatives could and cannot produce anyone who could do better and take a form stand on the matter. Or any matter? The hopefuls regard any such attempt right now as political suicide. True, I’m sure, but it says little for their integrity or ideas of service to the country. I assume that May took the job on the basis that she figured she might as well go into the history books, even perhaps as a footnote, because her career might not last more than a few more years anyway due to her age, and up to then she had not had a remarkable career at all.
At no point did I disprove my own arguments. Rather, I saw no point continuing to argue the matter with people who were blindly dogmatic.
The argument seems to have boiled down to a single problem; the land border between the two parts of the island of Ireland. The EU wants to include N. Ireland in their customs Union with a border in the Irish sea. As has been mentioned above, the N. Ireland MPs hold the balance of power in The House, and they will not countenance becoming semi-detached.
May needs to find some form of words that placates the DUP but is acceptable to the leaders of the EU countries. No doubt there will be a lot of back-room negotiation and a compromise after Christmas sometime. A compromise that no one likes, but no one hates enough to topple the government and go back to square one.
It is true you would think so.
You mean the blind dogmatism of showing how the characterisations you were making were very distorted, indeed like this one?
The lack of any response to the posts like this reply by DCTrekkie give more the impression of the emotional dogmatic beliefs that do not like being confronted with the facts.
The Ireland has this position and it is a key component - by having the open border between the Irish State and the Northern Ireland of the peace agreement between the warring factions of the Northern Ireland civil war. The agreement made between the parties in 1999. - and there is the legitimate expectation that this ending will inevitably eventually restart the conflict given the still not reconciled parties and the militias that can easily restart.
There are not words here - it is the question of the border controls that absolutely must happen under the no customs union and no free travel objectives of the hard Brexiters. This is a mechanical aspect of this objective.
No pretending changes this, it is the physical reality.
No, no, no. The proposal - and this comes from the UK side; it was accepted by the EU only with considerable reluctance - is that the whole of the UK should remain in the EU Customs Union. There will be no “customs border” between NI and GB. It’s on market regulation, not customs, where it is proposed that NI and GB regulations should diverge (more than they already do) thus necessitating (more than the existing) regulatory controls on trade between NI and GB.
. . . will not countenance becomign more semi-detached than they already are.
The DUP have made it clear that there is no feaasible wording which will placate them. In any event the problem here is not so much the DUP (10 members in Parliament) but the Tory backbencher European Research Group (about 80 members), who bitterly dislike the all-UK customs arrangement that May secured from the EU in her unsuccessful attempt to placate the DUP.
The UK is faced with three unpalatable alternatives - Brexit on May’s deal, which is unpopular; Brexit with no deal, which would be ruinous; abandon Brexit, which would be unpopular with a large section of the electorate and acutely embarrassing for a great many politicians. Wishful thinking about Brexit with very different deal to May’s deal is, well, wishful thinking; it’s not a realistic possiblity.
As regards May’s survival, which is the topic of this thread, that only seems possible if the UK eventually chooses option 1, Brexiting on May’s deal. I still think this is a possible outcome; given the constraints imposed by reality, and the further constraints arising from the positions the UK has adopted, May’s deal represents about the best Brexit that the UK could hope for, and when the pressure comes on from plunging markets and businesses relocatin production to the EU-27, enough MPs may decide that to avert grave national crisis, to avoid risk of losing Brexit altogether, etc, etc, May’s deal is the least awful option.