[Continuation] Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks... - Page 83

Captain_Swoop · 10th February 2019, 05:29 AM

Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations.

Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys.

That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them.

Mojo · 10th February 2019, 05:34 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations.

Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys.

That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them.

So we’re not leaving Eurovision?

BobTheCoward · 10th February 2019, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations.

Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys.

That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them.

But GB is a member of the EU. Seems you should be able to wave that flag.

Craig B · 10th February 2019, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

But GB is a member of the EU. Seems you should be able to wave that flag.

Scotland is a member of the British Union. Does it seem you should be allowed to wave the saltire?

BobTheCoward · 10th February 2019, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Craig B

Scotland is a member of the British Union. Does it seem you should be allowed to wave the saltire?

Yes

Vixen · 10th February 2019, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Degeneve

In an article published on 7 February the NYT tries to assess the damage oo a no deal deal Brexit for both the UK and the EU Member States. No real suprises here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ean-union.html

Interesting, nonetheless.

Vixen · 10th February 2019, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations.

Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys.

That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them.

Nobody wants to vote for Great Britain (except for the usual loyalty vote from Ireland), and it comes bottom or near bottom, no matter what the song, so why would BBC want to wave the bastards' flag?

P.J. Denyer · 10th February 2019, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

They started out with three vehicles though didn't they? Oh hell you're right, a 33.3% success rate is pretty good by current Tory standards.

Yeah, compare it to the survival rate of Brexit Secretaries.

The Don · 11th February 2019, 02:45 AM

I note that Theresa May is attempting to appeal to Labour MPs.

Instead of addressing the core concerns of being out of a customs union, she is instead using yet more funds from the Brexit Magic Money Tree^TM to ~~bribe~~ fund areas of specific concern to Labour MPs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233

My view is that as weak as Theresa May's position is, she recognises that Jeremy Corbyn's is even weaker and so she can pretty much sideline all of his major requests (though I note that the BBC has referred to them as "Demands", wonder if there's some editorialising going on there).

Nessie · 11th February 2019, 03:10 AM

There cannot be any doubt that May is running down the clock to the choice is her deal or no deal. I suspect she is doing that with EU backing since they agreed to her deal.

The EU is not prepared to keep negotiating with a group who cannot agree amongst themselves what they want. That is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, as it is impossible to negotiate with a group who have no set proposals or aims.

The Don · 11th February 2019, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

There cannot be any doubt that May is running down the clock to the choice is her deal or no deal. I suspect she is doing that with EU backing since they agreed to her deal.

My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK. There may be some protections for high profile industries like car making, fishing and agriculture but the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind.

I also think that's a very high risk strategy because the default position is no-deal and unless the Labour Party folds like a cheap deck chair (and it may), I cannot see Theresa May's deal being approved by the commons.

Originally Posted by Nessie

The EU is not prepared to keep negotiating with a group who cannot agree amongst themselves what they want. That is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, as it is impossible to negotiate with a group who have no set proposals or aims.

I agree.

Dave Rogers · 11th February 2019, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK.

As is any deal that involves actually leaving the EU, of course.

Dave

ponderingturtle · 11th February 2019, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Which Brexit did the 17.4 million vote for again ?

I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time.

ponderingturtle · 11th February 2019, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

As is any deal that involves actually leaving the EU, of course.

Dave

Not at all, only any deal that the EU would ever actually agree to. The proposed all of the benefits and none of the costs deal that was sold to the british public would be a great deal, of course the EU was never going to agree to it. But why should they let reality stop them now?

The Don · 11th February 2019, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time.

The problem with that view is that there was a poll conducted just after the referendum result. I've not been able to find it, but if memory serves the result was something like 60%+ would oppose Brexit if they were £50 a year worse off.

Lothian · 11th February 2019, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time.

There were 2 official campaigns. The vote leave campaign was clear that a UK/EU free trade deal was to be put in place before we left the EU. That is not a no deal brexit.

ponderingturtle · 11th February 2019, 05:40 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

There were 2 official campaigns. The vote leave campaign was clear that a UK/EU free trade deal was to be put in place before we left the EU. That is not a no deal brexit.

Such things like things on the side of their buses were never meant to be taken literally. Remember it can't possibly be their fault if people believed what they said.

Wudang · 11th February 2019, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

t the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind.

I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen.

The Don · 11th February 2019, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen.

The financial services industry in general, and the City of London in particular was blamed for the 2008 crash. Financial services workers are all seen as "fat cats", regardless that most are bank tellers, administrators, call centre workers and other comparatively low-paid roles. None of this is conducive to generating public sympathy. Anything which says that financial services is going to take a major hit is likely to be greeted with the comment "about time" by the public at large.

I think this has a lot to do with it, as does the relative complexity of the issues. Financial passporting is quite an abstract concept, building cars is not.

wobs · 11th February 2019, 06:19 AM

Huzzah! Some good news at last, and in Hull!
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2019/02/0...ategy-success/

Oh wait,.....spoof.

With Brexit its sometimes hard to tell.

Nessie · 11th February 2019, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK. There may be some protections for high profile industries like car making, fishing and agriculture but the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind.

I also think that's a very high risk strategy because the default position is no-deal and unless the Labour Party folds like a cheap deck chair (and it may), I cannot see Theresa May's deal being approved by the commons.

I agree.

May's deal is rubbish because the Tories cannot agree amongst themselves and she had to cobble together something.

But it is not just the Tories who are split, so is the rest of Parliament and so is the public. There is no consensus anywhere and never will be.

The biggest issue was that of the small majority who wanted to leave, there was a huge amount of disagreement as to what was to replace the existing membership of the EU.

Farage, Johnson, Cameron, Gove and the rest who caused the issues all wanted to go down in history as great politicians. History will instead look upon them with scorn as complete buffoons.

Information Analyst · 11th February 2019, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by wobs

Huzzah! Some good news at last, and in Hull!
http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2019/02/0...ategy-success/

Oh wait,.....spoof.

With Brexit its sometimes hard to tell.

"That’s why we’ve chosen a street of terraced houses in Bricknell in Hull to be re-purposed as a centre of Brexit celebration and study."

Should have been Orchard Park, surely?

wobs · 11th February 2019, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

"That’s why we’ve chosen a street of terraced houses in Bricknell in Hull to be re-purposed as a centre of Brexit celebration and study."

Should have been Orchard Park, surely?

I gave them the benefit of artist license on that one, but yes, Bricknell is hardly the most deprived area.

Captain_Swoop · 11th February 2019, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen.

Financial Services jobs aren't 'real' work, neither are IT or any similar job that involves sitting down in offices.
Factories, mining, steelmaking, shipbuilding, farming and fishing. They are the real jobs.

Ask anyone

wobs · 11th February 2019, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Wudang

I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen.

I once had a debate about Brexit with a leaver after a few too many beers, and they scoffed at the idea of protecting the Finance sector, as they were the cause of the 2008 crash. I could feel it coming even before I mentioned the sector.

The Don · 12th February 2019, 04:53 AM

Theresa May's message is that MPs must hold their nerve.

Quote:

Brexit talks are at a "crucial stage", Theresa May will tell MPs later when she updates them on the negotiations.

The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47206286

It feels to me like she thinks that offered a stark choice between her really, really, bad deal and no deal at all, the Labour Party will blink first and accept her deal in sufficient numbers to offset any ERG Conservatives and DUP politicians who feel that the backstop is a step too far.

Who knows, she may be right.

In other news, Phil Hammond is claiming a "Brexit dividend" from Theresa May's deal

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47209369

MPs don't believe it, because it's comparing Theresa May's deal to no deal, as opposed to the status quo. It reminds me of the kind of thinking an ex-colleague used to have. He considered the difference between his credit card balance and credit card limit to be his "savings for a rainy day".

Dave Rogers · 12th February 2019, 05:14 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Theresa May's message is that MPs must hold their nerve.

I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government.

Originally Posted by The Don

In other news, Phil Hammond is claiming a "Brexit dividend" from Theresa May's deal

Presumably because a "Brexit not-quite-as-****-as-it-might-have-been scenario" doesn't sound as good.

Dave

The Don · 12th February 2019, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government.

True.

Given that the only two possible outcomes now appear to be "Theresa May's Deal" or "No Deal" and no deal is the default - is the Labour Party really going to condemn the UK to a no deal Brexit ?

Mojo · 12th February 2019, 06:03 AM

Meanwhile: Government sued over no-deal ferry contracts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47206303

Quote:

Ewan West, representing Transport Secretary Chris Grayling in court, said the government's procurement process was only for "maritime freight" services and that Eurotunnel "could never have provided that capacity" and "could not have complied" with the terms of the contracts.

I really hope they’re going to argue that this was because they didn’t have any ships.

Dave Rogers · 12th February 2019, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Given that the only two possible outcomes now appear to be "Theresa May's Deal" or "No Deal" and no deal is the default - is the Labour Party really going to condemn the UK to a no deal Brexit ?

Not sure there isn't a third. Theresa May is still trying to hold the threat of "No Brexit" over the die-hard Brexiteers, who aren't bothered by "No deal", while doing the reverse to the rest of the House. If "No Brexit" is no longer credible then half her leverage is gone, and it was never enough leverage in the first place.

Dave

The Don · 12th February 2019, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Not sure there isn't a third. Theresa May is still trying to hold the threat of "No Brexit" over the die-hard Brexiteers, who aren't bothered by "No deal", while doing the reverse to the rest of the House. If "No Brexit" is no longer credible then half her leverage is gone, and it was never enough leverage in the first place.

Dave

IMO "No-Brexit" won't fly for many reasons:

Theresa May has repeatedly stated that a no-Deal Brexit is far better than no Brexit. I realise supporting an amendment to her own Brexit deal is quite a reverse, but I think cancelling Brexit is too much of an about turn for Theresa May
Brexit is Labour Party policy (and Jeremy Corbyn's personal wet dream) so any attempt to cancel Brexit will be opposed by Labour
The ERG and DUP will also be vehemently opposed to No-Brexit
As will all the Conservative MPs who represent Brexit-leaning constituencies
The UK isn't in a position to hold European Elections in any case

From day 1 I've been convinced that there are only two possible outcomes from Brexit, No-Brexit and No-Deal. IMO the No-Brexit boats were burned very early on and the "wisdom" of burning those boats has been repeatedly confirmed by parliament who have repeatedly refused to consider any kind of delay to Brexit or any kind of binding measure to prevent a No-Deal Brexit.

I can only conclude that the vast majority of Conservatives and a minority of Labour Party MPs are quite content with a no-Deal Brexit because they've had plenty of opportunity to voice any objections to it.

ponderingturtle · 12th February 2019, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

IMO "No-Brexit" won't fly for many reasons:

Theresa May has repeatedly stated that a no-Deal Brexit is far better than no Brexit. I realise supporting an amendment to her own Brexit deal is quite a reverse, but I think cancelling Brexit is too much of an about turn for Theresa May
Brexit is Labour Party policy (and Jeremy Corbyn's personal wet dream) so any attempt to cancel Brexit will be opposed by Labour
The ERG and DUP will also be vehemently opposed to No-Brexit
As will all the Conservative MPs who represent Brexit-leaning constituencies
The UK isn't in a position to hold European Elections in any case

From day 1 I've been convinced that there are only two possible outcomes from Brexit, No-Brexit and No-Deal. IMO the No-Brexit boats were burned very early on and the "wisdom" of burning those boats has been repeatedly confirmed by parliament who have repeatedly refused to consider any kind of delay to Brexit or any kind of binding measure to prevent a No-Deal Brexit.

I can only conclude that the vast majority of Conservatives and a minority of Labour Party MPs are quite content with a no-Deal Brexit because they've had plenty of opportunity to voice any objections to it.

Admittedly they have objected to no deal plenty of times, got to make sure they don't take the blame for it after all. It is far more important to not be seen as responsible for the catastrophe than to prevent it. That seems to be the main driving force in British politics right now.

Michel H · 12th February 2019, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government.

I don't think this is true, I think there is a substantial difference of opinion between the UK government and the EU about the backstop, and Theresa May has made her situation worse (in my opinion) by sending mixed and ambiguous messages about the backstop herself, sometimes approving it, or sometimes saying she just wanted to change it (but not removing it entirely). Perhaps she should say more clearly "no to the backstop", "this is an unacceptable attack on the UK's territorial integrity" to the EU, like the DUP (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1MC1LA), and insist somewhat less on a seamless border in Ireland. Perhaps she could then convince the EU to reopen the withdrawal deal, and have it approved by the House of Commons.

The Don · 12th February 2019, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Admittedly they have objected to no deal plenty of times, got to make sure they don't take the blame for it after all.

Well, yes and no.

They have made bleating noises about no-deal on a number of occasions but when they had the opportunity to make a binding vote to discount a no-deal Brexit, the amendment failed.

A non-binding amendment to allow parliament to voice an opinion regarding a no-deal did pass but that's like saying that you want to lose weight but failing to commit to either eat less or move more.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is far more important to not be seen as responsible for the catastrophe than to prevent it. That seems to be the main driving force in British politics right now.

The trouble is, that from the position of the two main political parties, there are two catastrophes, a no-Brexit (which will apparently be a political and democratic catastrophe despite the 52% who voted Leave having no single, clear, realistic idea of what they wanted) and a no-deal (which will likely be a political and economic disaster).

The clear message from those two major parties is that, from their perspective, a no-Deal is the lesser of two evils.

I get that the Conservative Party thinks that way, after all they are gammon-central, it's the Labour Party turning its back on 2/3 of its supporters (at the time of the referendum, 80%+ now) and heading inexorably towards Brexit has me scratching my head (and changing my political allegiance).

The Don · 12th February 2019, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

I don't think this is true, I think there is a substantial difference of opinion between the UK government and the EU about the backstop, and Theresa May has made her situation worse (in my opinion) by sending mixed and ambiguous messages about the backstop herself, sometimes approving it, or sometimes saying she just wanted to change it (but not removing it entirely). Perhaps she should say more clearly "no to the backstop", "this is an unacceptable attack on the UK's territorial integrity" to the EU, like the DUP (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1MC1LA), and insist somewhat less on a seamless border in Ireland. Perhaps she could then convince the EU to reopen the withdrawal deal, and have it approved by the House of Commons.

Have you not been reading at all. The backstop was something specifically requested by Theresa May as a means of ensuring that there was no hard border in Ireland which would likely result in a failure of the Good Friday Agreement and a return to violence.

The DUP are front and centre among those who would oppose a "less seamless border in Ireland" but to be honest, it's difficult to find too many people who would be in favour of it.

One thing to bear in mind about the DUP is that they are unionist and religious zealots who, despite being the largest NI party and the Protestants having the upper hand for the last three centuries and more, have an enormous persecution complex and so anything they say or do should be viewed through the lens of religious and sectarian bigotry.

Michel H · 12th February 2019, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Have you not been reading at all. The backstop was something specifically requested by Theresa May as a means of ensuring that there was no hard border in Ireland which would likely result in a failure of the Good Friday Agreement and a return to violence.

The DUP are front and centre among those who would oppose a "less seamless border in Ireland" but to be honest, it's difficult to find too many people who would be in favour of it.

One thing to bear in mind about the DUP is that they are unionist and religious zealots who, despite being the largest NI party and the Protestants having the upper hand for the last three centuries and more, have an enormous persecution complex and so anything they say or do should be viewed through the lens of religious and sectarian bigotry.

Quote:

Have you not been reading at all. The backstop was something specifically requested by Theresa May as a means of ensuring that there was no hard border in Ireland which would likely result in a failure of the Good Friday Agreement and a return to violence.

I am not too sure about the exact backstop history, though I think it was originally proposed by the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, not by the UK government. Wikipedia says:

Quote:

In order to keep a friction-less border, the European Union proposed a "backstop agreement" within the Withdrawal Agreement called the Northern Ireland Protocol.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_...kstop_proposal ).
The Irish Times says:

Quote:

... the EU has insisted that the UK agree to a “backstop” that guarantees that an invisible Border remains in place until the new trade arrangements are up and running.

(https://www.irishtimes.com/news/worl...tter-1.3571135 ).

Nonetheless, it seems to me Arlene Foster's position is fairly reasonable and understandable in this specific instance, it is not based on religious considerations. If Theresa May had been as firm and consistent with Brussels as Arlene Foster, perhaps the European Commision would have reopened negotiations.

The Don · 12th February 2019, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

Nonetheless, it seems to me Arlene Foster's position is fairly reasonable and understandable in this specific instance, it is not based on religious considerations. If Theresa May had been as firm and consistent with Brussels as Arlene Foster, perhaps the European Commision would have reopened negotiations.

Arlene Foster's position is not only not reasonable, it's not even internally consistent.

She wants a hard-Brexit, no border in Ireland and no border between Ireland and the British mainland. These things are fundamentally incompatible.

That's not surprising for someone who insists that Northern Ireland is treated exactly the same as the rest of the UK - except for those areas where her religious ~~bigotry~~ views dictate otherwise.

Michel H · 12th February 2019, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

Arlene Foster's position is not only not reasonable, it's not even internally consistent.

She wants a hard-Brexit, no border in Ireland and no border between Ireland and the British mainland. These things are fundamentally incompatible.

That's not surprising for someone who insists that Northern Ireland is treated exactly the same as the rest of the UK - except for those areas where her religious ~~bigotry~~ views dictate otherwise.

Arlene Foster definitely wants no border between Ireland and the British mainland, this seems to be her main message. You say:

Quote:

She wants a hard-Brexit, no border in Ireland

About this, I am not sure. Perhaps you could provide some quotes to justify your statements and accusations.

jimbob · 12th February 2019, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Admittedly they have objected to no deal plenty of times, got to make sure they don't take the blame for it after all. It is far more important to not be seen as responsible for the catastrophe than to prevent it. That seems to be the main driving force in British politics right now.

Originally Posted by The Don

Well, yes and no.

They have made bleating noises about no-deal on a number of occasions but when they had the opportunity to make a binding vote to discount a no-deal Brexit, the amendment failed.

A non-binding amendment to allow parliament to voice an opinion regarding a no-deal did pass but that's like saying that you want to lose weight but failing to commit to either eat less or move more.

The trouble is, that from the position of the two main political parties, there are two catastrophes, a no-Brexit (which will apparently be a political and democratic catastrophe despite the 52% who voted Leave having no single, clear, realistic idea of what they wanted) and a no-deal (which will likely be a political and economic disaster).

The clear message from those two major parties is that, from their perspective, a no-Deal is the lesser of two evils.

I get that the Conservative Party thinks that way, after all they are gammon-central, it's the Labour Party turning its back on 2/3 of its supporters (at the time of the referendum, 80%+ now) and heading inexorably towards Brexit has me scratching my head (and changing my political allegiance).

Ponderingturtle was very careful in their choice of words.

The Don · 12th February 2019, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Michel H

About this, I am not sure. Perhaps you could provide some quotes to justify your statements and accusations.

Hard Brexit:

Quote:

DUP leader Arlene Foster has reacted angrily to claims her party would be open to a softer Brexit deal if the whole of the UK remained in the Customs Union.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-37724833.html

No hard Border:

Quote:

The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) opposes a hard Irish border,and wishes to maintain the Common Travel Area

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_border_question

10th February 2019, 05:34 AM	#3282
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,926	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations. Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys. That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them. So we’re not leaving Eurovision?
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,926	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

10th February 2019, 09:37 AM	#3286
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 15,186	Originally Posted by Degeneve In an article published on 7 February the NYT tries to assess the damage oo a no deal deal Brexit for both the UK and the EU Member States. No real suprises here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ean-union.html Interesting, nonetheless.
	__________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

10th February 2019, 09:40 AM	#3287
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 15,186	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations. Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys. That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them. Nobody wants to vote for Great Britain (except for the usual loyalty vote from Ireland), and it comes bottom or near bottom, no matter what the song, so why would BBC want to wave the bastards' flag?
	__________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

10th February 2019, 01:29 PM	#3288
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,335	Originally Posted by RolandRat They started out with three vehicles though didn't they? Oh hell you're right, a 33.3% success rate is pretty good by current Tory standards. Yeah, compare it to the survival rate of Brexit Secretaries.
P.J. Denyer Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 5,335	__________________ "I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

11th February 2019, 03:10 AM	#3290
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 11,771	There cannot be any doubt that May is running down the clock to the choice is her deal or no deal. I suspect she is doing that with EU backing since they agreed to her deal. The EU is not prepared to keep negotiating with a group who cannot agree amongst themselves what they want. That is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, as it is impossible to negotiate with a group who have no set proposals or aims.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

10th February 2019, 05:29 AM	#3281
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 20,330	Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations. Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys. That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them.

10th February 2019, 06:21 AM	#3283
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 16,640	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Outrage among 'remainers' on social media at the anti EU bias of the BBC because they only provided Union Flags for the audience of the show to decide the GB entry to Eurovision and didn't allow EU flags or provide flags of other nations. Apparently it shows the BBC bias against the EU and reveals them as Tory lackeys. That the Eurovsion Song Contest is nothing to do with the EU and the show was to decide the GB entry seems to have escaped them. But GB is a member of the EU. Seems you should be able to wave that flag.

10th February 2019, 07:27 AM	#3284
Craig B Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 22,641	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward But GB is a member of the EU. Seems you should be able to wave that flag. Scotland is a member of the British Union. Does it seem you should be allowed to wave the saltire?

10th February 2019, 08:55 AM	#3285
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 16,640	Originally Posted by Craig B Scotland is a member of the British Union. Does it seem you should be allowed to wave the saltire? Yes

11th February 2019, 02:45 AM	#3289
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	I note that Theresa May is attempting to appeal to Labour MPs. Instead of addressing the core concerns of being out of a customs union, she is instead using yet more funds from the Brexit Magic Money Tree^TM to ~~bribe~~ fund areas of specific concern to Labour MPs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47192233 My view is that as weak as Theresa May's position is, she recognises that Jeremy Corbyn's is even weaker and so she can pretty much sideline all of his major requests (though I note that the BBC has referred to them as "Demands", wonder if there's some editorialising going on there).

11th February 2019, 03:23 AM	#3291
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by Nessie There cannot be any doubt that May is running down the clock to the choice is her deal or no deal. I suspect she is doing that with EU backing since they agreed to her deal. My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK. There may be some protections for high profile industries like car making, fishing and agriculture but the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind. I also think that's a very high risk strategy because the default position is no-deal and unless the Labour Party folds like a cheap deck chair (and it may), I cannot see Theresa May's deal being approved by the commons. Originally Posted by Nessie The EU is not prepared to keep negotiating with a group who cannot agree amongst themselves what they want. That is a perfectly reasonable stance to take, as it is impossible to negotiate with a group who have no set proposals or aims. I agree.

11th February 2019, 03:41 AM	#3292
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,960	Originally Posted by The Don My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK. As is any deal that involves actually leaving the EU, of course. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

11th February 2019, 04:16 AM	#3293
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by The Don Which Brexit did the 17.4 million vote for again ? I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th February 2019, 04:21 AM	#3294
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers As is any deal that involves actually leaving the EU, of course. Dave Not at all, only any deal that the EU would ever actually agree to. The proposed all of the benefits and none of the costs deal that was sold to the british public would be a great deal, of course the EU was never going to agree to it. But why should they let reality stop them now?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th February 2019, 04:25 AM	#3295
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time. The problem with that view is that there was a poll conducted just after the referendum result. I've not been able to find it, but if memory serves the result was something like 60%+ would oppose Brexit if they were £50 a year worse off.

11th February 2019, 05:29 AM	#3296
Lothian should be banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: on the edge Posts: 14,293	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle I think it is clear that they voted for a no deal brexit no matter what they thought they were voting for. That is the problem with such a vague stance as brexit was at the time. There were 2 official campaigns. The vote leave campaign was clear that a UK/EU free trade deal was to be put in place before we left the EU. That is not a no deal brexit.

11th February 2019, 05:40 AM	#3297
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by Lothian There were 2 official campaigns. The vote leave campaign was clear that a UK/EU free trade deal was to be put in place before we left the EU. That is not a no deal brexit. Such things like things on the side of their buses were never meant to be taken literally. Remember it can't possibly be their fault if people believed what they said.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

11th February 2019, 06:06 AM	#3298
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,603	Originally Posted by The Don t the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind. I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen.

11th February 2019, 06:16 AM	#3299
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by Wudang I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen. The financial services industry in general, and the City of London in particular was blamed for the 2008 crash. Financial services workers are all seen as "fat cats", regardless that most are bank tellers, administrators, call centre workers and other comparatively low-paid roles. None of this is conducive to generating public sympathy. Anything which says that financial services is going to take a major hit is likely to be greeted with the comment "about time" by the public at large. I think this has a lot to do with it, as does the relative complexity of the issues. Financial passporting is quite an abstract concept, building cars is not.

11th February 2019, 06:19 AM	#3300
wobs Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Hull Posts: 1,908	Huzzah! Some good news at last, and in Hull! http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2019/02/0...ategy-success/ Oh wait,.....spoof. With Brexit its sometimes hard to tell.
	__________________ "To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."

11th February 2019, 07:28 AM	#3301
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 11,771	Originally Posted by The Don My issue with Theresa May's deal is that it is better than no deal (in the same way that losing £1000 is better than £1500) but its still a terrible deal for the UK. There may be some protections for high profile industries like car making, fishing and agriculture but the service industry which accounts for 80% of GDP, more than 100% of growth in the UK economy and which has a significant trade surplus with the rest of the world has just been left hanging in the wind. I also think that's a very high risk strategy because the default position is no-deal and unless the Labour Party folds like a cheap deck chair (and it may), I cannot see Theresa May's deal being approved by the commons. I agree. May's deal is rubbish because the Tories cannot agree amongst themselves and she had to cobble together something. But it is not just the Tories who are split, so is the rest of Parliament and so is the public. There is no consensus anywhere and never will be. The biggest issue was that of the small majority who wanted to leave, there was a huge amount of disagreement as to what was to replace the existing membership of the EU. Farage, Johnson, Cameron, Gove and the rest who caused the issues all wanted to go down in history as great politicians. History will instead look upon them with scorn as complete buffoons.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

11th February 2019, 09:48 AM	#3302
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 9,219	Originally Posted by wobs Huzzah! Some good news at last, and in Hull! http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2019/02/0...ategy-success/ Oh wait,.....spoof. With Brexit its sometimes hard to tell. "That’s why we’ve chosen a street of terraced houses in Bricknell in Hull to be re-purposed as a centre of Brexit celebration and study." Should have been Orchard Park, surely?

11th February 2019, 10:04 AM	#3303
wobs Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Hull Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by Information Analyst "That’s why we’ve chosen a street of terraced houses in Bricknell in Hull to be re-purposed as a centre of Brexit celebration and study." Should have been Orchard Park, surely? I gave them the benefit of artist license on that one, but yes, Bricknell is hardly the most deprived area.
	__________________ "To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."

11th February 2019, 10:15 AM	#3304
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 20,330	Originally Posted by Wudang I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen. Financial Services jobs aren't 'real' work, neither are IT or any similar job that involves sitting down in offices. Factories, mining, steelmaking, shipbuilding, farming and fishing. They are the real jobs. Ask anyone

11th February 2019, 02:45 PM	#3305
wobs Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Hull Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by Wudang I've puzzled over this for a long time and wondered why it seems to get so little attention in the mainstream news. Is it because if we asked for protection for finance that they would then insist we followed EU regulations on finance. In particular the upcoming EU laws on transparency would impact banks and other financial institutions which enable tax evasion and so on. We know a number of MPs and media owners who do not want this to happen. I once had a debate about Brexit with a leaver after a few too many beers, and they scoffed at the idea of protecting the Finance sector, as they were the cause of the 2008 crash. I could feel it coming even before I mentioned the sector.
	__________________ "To vowels. They stop consonants sticking together like boiled sweets in a paper bag."

12th February 2019, 04:53 AM	#3306
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Theresa May's message is that MPs must hold their nerve. Quote: Brexit talks are at a "crucial stage", Theresa May will tell MPs later when she updates them on the negotiations. The PM will say "we now all need to hold our nerve" to get the changes needed to get her Brexit deal through Parliament by the 29 March deadline. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47206286 It feels to me like she thinks that offered a stark choice between her really, really, bad deal and no deal at all, the Labour Party will blink first and accept her deal in sufficient numbers to offset any ERG Conservatives and DUP politicians who feel that the backstop is a step too far. Who knows, she may be right. In other news, Phil Hammond is claiming a "Brexit dividend" from Theresa May's deal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47209369 MPs don't believe it, because it's comparing Theresa May's deal to no deal, as opposed to the status quo. It reminds me of the kind of thinking an ex-colleague used to have. He considered the difference between his credit card balance and credit card limit to be his "savings for a rainy day".

12th February 2019, 05:14 AM	#3307
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,960	Originally Posted by The Don Theresa May's message is that MPs must hold their nerve. I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government. Originally Posted by The Don In other news, Phil Hammond is claiming a "Brexit dividend" from Theresa May's deal Presumably because a "Brexit not-quite-as-****-as-it-might-have-been scenario" doesn't sound as good. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

12th February 2019, 05:51 AM	#3308
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government. True. Given that the only two possible outcomes now appear to be "Theresa May's Deal" or "No Deal" and no deal is the default - is the Labour Party really going to condemn the UK to a no deal Brexit ?

12th February 2019, 06:03 AM	#3309
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,926	Meanwhile: Government sued over no-deal ferry contracts https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47206303 Quote: Ewan West, representing Transport Secretary Chris Grayling in court, said the government's procurement process was only for "maritime freight" services and that Eurotunnel "could never have provided that capacity" and "could not have complied" with the terms of the contracts. I really hope they’re going to argue that this was because they didn’t have any ships.
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,926	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

12th February 2019, 06:38 AM	#3310
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,960	Originally Posted by The Don Given that the only two possible outcomes now appear to be "Theresa May's Deal" or "No Deal" and no deal is the default - is the Labour Party really going to condemn the UK to a no deal Brexit ? Not sure there isn't a third. Theresa May is still trying to hold the threat of "No Brexit" over the die-hard Brexiteers, who aren't bothered by "No deal", while doing the reverse to the rest of the House. If "No Brexit" is no longer credible then half her leverage is gone, and it was never enough leverage in the first place. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

12th February 2019, 06:48 AM	#3311
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Not sure there isn't a third. Theresa May is still trying to hold the threat of "No Brexit" over the die-hard Brexiteers, who aren't bothered by "No deal", while doing the reverse to the rest of the House. If "No Brexit" is no longer credible then half her leverage is gone, and it was never enough leverage in the first place. Dave IMO "No-Brexit" won't fly for many reasons: Theresa May has repeatedly stated that a no-Deal Brexit is far better than no Brexit. I realise supporting an amendment to her own Brexit deal is quite a reverse, but I think cancelling Brexit is too much of an about turn for Theresa May Brexit is Labour Party policy (and Jeremy Corbyn's personal wet dream) so any attempt to cancel Brexit will be opposed by Labour The ERG and DUP will also be vehemently opposed to No-Brexit As will all the Conservative MPs who represent Brexit-leaning constituencies The UK isn't in a position to hold European Elections in any case From day 1 I've been convinced that there are only two possible outcomes from Brexit, No-Brexit and No-Deal. IMO the No-Brexit boats were burned very early on and the "wisdom" of burning those boats has been repeatedly confirmed by parliament who have repeatedly refused to consider any kind of delay to Brexit or any kind of binding measure to prevent a No-Deal Brexit. I can only conclude that the vast majority of Conservatives and a minority of Labour Party MPs are quite content with a no-Deal Brexit because they've had plenty of opportunity to voice any objections to it.

12th February 2019, 07:17 AM	#3312
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 46,063	Originally Posted by The Don IMO "No-Brexit" won't fly for many reasons: Theresa May has repeatedly stated that a no-Deal Brexit is far better than no Brexit. I realise supporting an amendment to her own Brexit deal is quite a reverse, but I think cancelling Brexit is too much of an about turn for Theresa May Brexit is Labour Party policy (and Jeremy Corbyn's personal wet dream) so any attempt to cancel Brexit will be opposed by Labour The ERG and DUP will also be vehemently opposed to No-Brexit As will all the Conservative MPs who represent Brexit-leaning constituencies The UK isn't in a position to hold European Elections in any case From day 1 I've been convinced that there are only two possible outcomes from Brexit, No-Brexit and No-Deal. IMO the No-Brexit boats were burned very early on and the "wisdom" of burning those boats has been repeatedly confirmed by parliament who have repeatedly refused to consider any kind of delay to Brexit or any kind of binding measure to prevent a No-Deal Brexit. I can only conclude that the vast majority of Conservatives and a minority of Labour Party MPs are quite content with a no-Deal Brexit because they've had plenty of opportunity to voice any objections to it. Admittedly they have objected to no deal plenty of times, got to make sure they don't take the blame for it after all. It is far more important to not be seen as responsible for the catastrophe than to prevent it. That seems to be the main driving force in British politics right now.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th February 2019, 07:27 AM	#3313
Michel H Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2012 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,657	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I think her biggest problem may be that they will do exactly that; she's pretending the UK is in a staring match with the EU, when in fact Parliament is in a staring match with the government. I don't think this is true, I think there is a substantial difference of opinion between the UK government and the EU about the backstop, and Theresa May has made her situation worse (in my opinion) by sending mixed and ambiguous messages about the backstop herself, sometimes approving it, or sometimes saying she just wanted to change it (but not removing it entirely). Perhaps she should say more clearly "no to the backstop", "this is an unacceptable attack on the UK's territorial integrity" to the EU, like the DUP (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1MC1LA), and insist somewhat less on a seamless border in Ireland. Perhaps she could then convince the EU to reopen the withdrawal deal, and have it approved by the House of Commons.

12th February 2019, 08:04 AM	#3314
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Admittedly they have objected to no deal plenty of times, got to make sure they don't take the blame for it after all. Well, yes and no. They have made bleating noises about no-deal on a number of occasions but when they had the opportunity to make a binding vote to discount a no-deal Brexit, the amendment failed. A non-binding amendment to allow parliament to voice an opinion regarding a no-deal did pass but that's like saying that you want to lose weight but failing to commit to either eat less or move more. Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It is far more important to not be seen as responsible for the catastrophe than to prevent it. That seems to be the main driving force in British politics right now. The trouble is, that from the position of the two main political parties, there are two catastrophes, a no-Brexit (which will apparently be a political and democratic catastrophe despite the 52% who voted Leave having no single, clear, realistic idea of what they wanted) and a no-deal (which will likely be a political and economic disaster). The clear message from those two major parties is that, from their perspective, a no-Deal is the lesser of two evils. I get that the Conservative Party thinks that way, after all they are gammon-central, it's the Labour Party turning its back on 2/3 of its supporters (at the time of the referendum, 80%+ now) and heading inexorably towards Brexit has me scratching my head (and changing my political allegiance).

12th February 2019, 08:12 AM	#3315
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 25,849	Originally Posted by Michel H I don't think this is true, I think there is a substantial difference of opinion between the UK government and the EU about the backstop, and Theresa May has made her situation worse (in my opinion) by sending mixed and ambiguous messages about the backstop herself, sometimes approving it, or sometimes saying she just wanted to change it (but not removing it entirely). Perhaps she should say more clearly "no to the backstop", "this is an unacceptable attack on the UK's territorial integrity" to the EU, like the DUP (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKCN1MC1LA), and insist somewhat less on a seamless border in Ireland. Perhaps she could then convince the EU to reopen the withdrawal deal, and have it approved by the House of Commons. Have you not been reading at all. The backstop was something specifically requested by Theresa May as a means of ensuring that there was no hard border in Ireland which would likely result in a failure of the Good Friday Agreement and a return to violence. The DUP are front and centre among those who would oppose a "less seamless border in Ireland" but to be honest, it's difficult to find too many people who would be in favour of it. One thing to bear in mind about the DUP is that they are unionist and religious zealots who, despite being the largest NI party and the Protestants having the upper hand for the last three centuries and more, have an enormous persecution complex and so anything they say or do should be viewed through the lens of religious and sectarian bigotry.