General Election, June 8th

[SMX11]

Define 'Hard Brexit'. It means nothing to me other than a buzzword for 'I don't like it'. If you mean leaving the single market and the customs union then most voted for that in the election based on the manifestos.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If we end up re-entering i can only see that being accepted if we become a full and active member at the heart of Europe without the various opt outs we used to have.

No idea regarding un-triggering article 50.

 

I tend to agree with you as regards re-entering - and suspect that it couldn't happen for decades. Brexit is such a massive, disruptive event for the EU27, requiring them to rehash most of their structures, strategies, policies and budgets, that I can't imagine them wanting to do it in reverse for a very, very long time.

 

Article 50 is inconclusive as to whether any "un-triggering" of Article 50 would be possible, but a few months back most (not all) experts thought that WOULD be a legal option.

 

However, there's "legal" and there's "politically feasible". I suspect that the more the Brexit process advances, the less willing the EU will be to countenance the UK remaining in the EU.

I also suspect that the UK parties will not give that option serious consideration unless there is massive public demand for it - and there won't be massive public demand until/unless it is clear that we're not going to get a good deal and that the economy is going to be trashed. So, by the time this issue is given serious consideration, I reckon Brexit will be a fait accompli - it'll just be a case of what sort of Brexit we end up with.

 

On the BBC Lunchtime News, Wolfgang Schäuble (German Finance Minister) was suggesting that the UK could still change its mind - but Guy Verhofstadt (European Parliament leader) said that this was no longer an option - that Brexit will happen. 

[Jon the Hat]

I will be very impressed should these briefings turn into a real plan B on getting an agreed Breixt deal.  I still think the idea of getting a 100 seat majority was to be able to soften their stance, and to negotiate much more collaboratively to find a compromise which works for everyone.  Now it appear some sort of cross party commission may evolve to achieve the required consensus, without killing any one party.  This would frankly be a remarkable move.  Fingers crossed.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I tend to agree with you as regards re-entering - and suspect that it couldn't happen for decades. Brexit is such a massive, disruptive event for the EU27, requiring them to rehash most of their structures, strategies, policies and budgets, that I can't imagine them wanting to do it in reverse for a very, very long time.

 

Article 50 is inconclusive as to whether any "un-triggering" of Article 50 would be possible, but a few months back most (not all) experts thought that WOULD be a legal option.

 

However, there's "legal" and there's "politically feasible". I suspect that the more the Brexit process advances, the less willing the EU will be to countenance the UK remaining in the EU.

I also suspect that the UK parties will not give that option serious consideration unless there is massive public demand for it - and there won't be massive public demand until/unless it is clear that we're not going to get a good deal and that the economy is going to be trashed. So, by the time this issue is given serious consideration, I reckon Brexit will be a fait accompli - it'll just be a case of what sort of Brexit we end up with.

 

On the BBC Lunchtime News, Wolfgang Schäuble (German Finance Minister) was suggesting that the UK could still change its mind - but Guy Verhofstadt (European Parliament leader) said that this was no longer an option - that Brexit will happen. 

I still hold that the EU is not going to continue as is, it will get smaller / two tier membership.  We are just the first, the trailblazers!

[Rincewind]

Why does one party have to deal with it? There should be a cross section of MPs then draw up some sort of agreement to hand in. Then after it is rejected discuss the EU's proposal amendments. Surely a group of grownups can come to some sort of agreement without tantrums.

Instead of a soft or hard Brexit they could end up with a squidgy one.

[Guest]

I just gave jonthehat a rep point 

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

John major concerned about the dup deal. Im sure he doesn't know as much as mattp and webbo though...

 

I am concerned about the deal, I am wary about it, I am dubious about it, both for peace process reasons, and for other reasons as well ...

My main concern is the peace process. A fundamental part of that peace process is that the UK government needs to be impartial between all the competing interests in Northern Ireland. And the danger is that however much any government tries, they will not be seen to be impartial if they are locked into a parliamentary deal at Westminster with one of the Northern Ireland parties. And you never know in what unpredictable way events will turn out. And we cannot know if that impartiality is going to be crucial at some stage in the future.

If there difficulties with the Northern Ireland executive or with any one of a number of things that might well arise during the Brexit negotiations, it is very important that there’s an honest broker. And the only honest broker can be the UK government.

And the question arises, if they cease to be seen as such by part of the community in Northern Ireland, then one can’t be quite certain how events will unwind. And that worries me a great deal about the peace process.

Why are you always so personal?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Why are you always so personal?

Sorry webbo. I sometimes read the more right wing comments as if they've been written by an angry, shouty men. As i struggle to understand your politics - and you probably do mine - some of the views i read are to me quite extreme (in the soft sense and particularly around brexit) which makes me slightly prickly. My bad.

[davieG]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Sorry webbo. I sometimes read the more right wing comments as if they've been written by an angry, shouty men. As i struggle to understand your politics - and you probably do mine - some of the views i read are to me quite extreme (in the soft sense and particularly around brexit) which makes me slightly prickly. My bad.

As your name implies.

[Alf Bentley]

18 minutes ago, davieG said:

As your name implies.

 

Maybe he'd had a hot toddy before being bad?

[AndWhat?]

So Labour voters are smarter than Tory voters 

 

[Stadt]

1 minute ago, AndWhat? said:

So Labour voters are smarter than Tory voters 

 

I bet the Tories are better off though (probably not with median income though)

[theessexfox]

I thought May was trying to form a government, why's she in Paris?

[Realist Guy In The Room]

24 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I thought May was trying to form a government, why's she in Paris?

Wants to sing Oasis innit?

[Sharpe's Fox]

Working age people more likely vote Labour n'all

 

 

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I'm no expert on Northern Irish politics, but possible causes for the DUP to withdraw....

- If Brexit negotiations aren't producing an open Irish border (which might require the UK to stay in the Customs Union, in turn possibly causing Tory schisms that could collapse the govt)

- If at any point May is not prepared to offer them as many goodies as they want (investment, cash, policy concessions)

- If the govt starts to become seriously unpopular (e.g. due to growing economic problems). They probably wouldn't want to be associated with that as it could cost them electoral support big-time

- If they spot an opportunity to do serious political damage to Sinn Fein or to the Official Unionists (though the latter are badly damaged already)

- I'd like to think that they'd also withdraw if the alliance was going to lead to a permanent collapse of power-sharing or of the Peace Process

 

I take your point that they wouldn't want to put Corbyn in No. 10, but there's not much chance of that on the current numbers. He might be able to form a govt with the support of LDs, SNP, Plaid & Green, but would still only have 314 seats. So the DUP could collapse the Tory Govt and then vote with the Tories to collapse any minority Labour administration.....then the Tories would be blamed if they opted not to bring down a Corbyn Govt and trigger an election, surely?

 

No probs re replying. About time I got on with other stuff, too!

Fair play, I doubt the DUP would do anything stupid, we know what they'll want - cash and lots of it. Even if they tried to blame the Tories for a collapse they could absolutely destroy their own cause by letting this current Labour front bench in, everything I have heard says they are looking at the long term deal, if they did bring the government down they would lose that. I'm sure the Tories know they can threaten the DUP in retaliation by threatening another election. 

 

Jeremy Corbyn as opposition leader is going to be the glue that holds this alliance together.

 

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

Political support grows for cross-party approach to Brexit negotiations

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/13/brexit-negotiations-cross-party-support-jeremy-corbyn

No problem with that providing it's Corbyn and McDonnell.

 

8 hours ago, The Doctor said:

As I said - weak semantics. We know it's not an official coalition, we know the DUP won't be taking ministerial seats, but that is irrelevant really. It's two parties working very closely together to run a government with a parliamentary majority, it's an unofficial coalition - if you seriously think Sinn fein and the like will look at that and say "it's fine, the DUP haven't taken any ministerial seats" then you're naïve.

It's not semantics at all, it isn't a coalition.

 

Believe me the Tories would prefer that, it ties them into a government, the DUP know going into that would reduce their leverage - with confidence and supply they can demand something at every vote. They can't in office.

 

8 hours ago, Captain... said:

The inner workings of the Tory party is a mystery to me so I will bow to your greater knowledge, my impression was that the majority of the Tory party ministers backed remain.

The problem is 70-75% of Tory voters backed leave - any second referendum under their watch would result in a complete disaster for them at the ballot box.

 

If they could get away with it the ministers would do it I'm sure, but they can't. 

 

6 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

On the BBC Lunchtime News, Wolfgang Schäuble (German Finance Minister) was suggesting that the UK could still change its mind - but Guy Verhofstadt (European Parliament leader) said that this was no longer an option - that Brexit will happen. 

I watched that, it's ridiculous. I don't think there has ever been so little clarity over such a big issue over such a long space of time.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if both sides haven't got a clue what to do when it comes to thus negotiation. No one give straight answers to basic questions. 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Working age people more likely vote Labour n'all

 

 

Ridiculous.

[Izzy]

Seems Diane Abbott has type 2 diabetes which was "out of control" during the election campaign.

 

Also seems our very own Theresa May has type 1 diabetes and has to inject herself with insulin 6 times a day - which I didn't know.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40268505

 

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Seems Diane Abbott has type 2 diabetes which was "out of control" during the election campaign.

 

Also seems our very own Theresa May has type 1 diabetes and has to inject herself with insulin 6 times a day - which I didn't know.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40268505

 

Apparently that was why the chip photo op was really awkward as she would have had to inject insulin before eating them, but she didn't want to inject in public.

 

Or at least that's what my mate with type 1 diabetes said.

[katieakita]

Got to love the Daily Fail, wonder how long they have sat on this story for. There again being the Mail it could be bollox anyway

[The Doctor]

9 hours ago, MattP said:

It's not semantics at all, it isn't a coalition.

 

Believe me the Tories would prefer that, it ties them into a government, the DUP know going into that would reduce their leverage - with confidence and supply they can demand something at every vote. They can't in office.

So, you don't know what semantics means? Arguing that it's not a coalition, it's just a confidence and supply deal is semantics, you're arguing the small differences (whether the DUP have ministerial positions) which are irrelevant to the problems people have with it.

 

So, the question you ignored - do you think the problem people have isn't the government ceasing to be neutral in Northern Ireland but the DUP getting some ministerial positions, and that it not technically being a coalition resolves that?

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

So, you don't know what semantics means? Arguing that it's not a coalition, it's just a confidence and supply deal is semantics, you're arguing the small differences (whether the DUP have ministerial positions) which are irrelevant to the problems people have with it.

 

So, the question you ignored - do you think the problem people have isn't the government ceasing to be neutral in Northern Ireland but the DUP getting some ministerial positions, and that it not technically being a coalition resolves that?

They aren't small differences, they are huge. A coalition is widely different to confidence and supply arrangement. I don't think this will resolve anything in Northern Ireland, if you hadn't noticed, while we have had a Conservative government with a majority power sharing talks have broken down across the Irish sea and that was nothing to do with this, if Sinn Fein want to use this to continue to cry foul play they will do, it's not like they hadn't already done so before. I have no idea why anyone would want to give them an excuse, don't forget if was they who walked away originally and it was them who caused the main part of the stalemate asking for the ridiculous irish languages act and the refusing to nominate a DFM.

 

.I actually think there is something quite beautiful about all this, the picture of Arlene Foster, a woman who was on a school bus the IRA bombed, arriving in London yesterday to keep out (probable obviously, as I can't prove it) IRA sympathisers from Downing Street.

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I actually think there is something quite beautiful about all this, the picture of Arlene Foster, a woman who was on a school bus the IRA bombed, arriving in London yesterday to keep out (probable obviously, as I can't prove it) IRA sympathisers from Downing Street.

 

It's just a shame she's from a party that would persecute gays given the chance and has roots in groups that committed just as heinous crimes.

 

What a victory for humanity.

[Mike Oxlong]

11 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Seems Diane Abbott has type 2 diabetes which was "out of control" during the election campaign.

 

Also seems our very own Theresa May has type 1 diabetes and has to inject herself with insulin 6 times a day - which I didn't know.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40268505

 

 

“During the election campaign, everything went crazy – and the diabetes was out of control, the blood sugar was out of control,” she told the Guardian, saying that she was badly affected after facing six or seven interviews in a row without eating enough food."

 

 

Something ironic about that. 

[Alf Bentley]

58 minutes ago, MattP said:

if Sinn Fein want to use this to continue to cry foul play they will do, it's not like they hadn't already done so before. I have no idea why anyone would want to give them an excuse, don't forget if was they who walked away originally and it was them who caused the main part of the stalemate asking for the ridiculous irish languages act and the refusing to nominate a DFM.

 

Out of curiosity, what do you find ridiculous about the proposed Irish Language Act? 

 

Do you view it as a waste of money because only a tiny number of people in N. Ireland speak Irish as a first language (though a larger minority use it as a second language)?

If so, in the far-fetched hypothetical situation where the Chinese had taken over England and most people spoke Mandarin, would you view it as a waste of money to try to keep the Engllish language alive?

 

The sister-in-law of David Ervine, the late Loyalist leader (for whom I had a lot of respect), disagrees with you: http://www.irishnews.com/news/politicalnews/2017/02/07/news/linda-ervine-sad-at-arlene-foster-s-comments-on-irish-language-act-922515/