Getting brexit done!

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Plenty on here have raised it in the past. It’s not a new complaint, obviously it will always be louder just after an election.

I have some sympathy with it but alternatives hardly ever deliver a majority government. We have just seen how ineffective a minority government can be. I’d rather not sign up to an eternity of that thanks.

 

Thanks for your first point. On the second....

 

- Were the Cameron 2015-16 & May 2016-17 majority govts more effective than the 2010-15 minority (coalition) govt?

- Was Blair's use of a massive majority under FPTP to railroad us into the Iraq War under false pretenses a great advert for FPTP?

- Germany has had a form of PR leading to coalitions for decades. It is in a mess just now, but has the UK been notably better run than Germany over recent decades?

 

There's no such thing as a flawless system. Any system will function badly from time to time & all systems will depend partly on checks & balances, separation/decentralisation of power etc.

 

At this election, the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland....and 81.3% of the seats, and is now seen as having "swept Scotland with a mandate for independence". How can that be representative democracy?

At the 2015 election, UKIP got 12.6% of the vote & 1 seat; the SNP got 4.7% & 56 seats...

 

Anyway, nothing will change for at least another 5 years now.....during which time, a massively centralised govt will exercise near-absolute power based on 42-43% of the vote, a popular slogan, a near-empty manifesto, a few identifiable policies & the unpopularity of alternative parties/leaders. I wonder what our all-powerful narcissist leader will choose to do with us for 5 years, beyond "getting Brexit done" (whatever that means, in practice)?

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for your first point. On the second....

 

- Were the Cameron 2015-16 & May 2016-17 majority govts more effective than the 2010-15 minority (coalition) govt?

- Was Blair's use of a massive majority under FPTP to railroad us into the Iraq War under false pretenses a great advert for FPTP?

- Germany has had a form of PR leading to coalitions for decades. It is in a mess just now, but has the UK been notably better run than Germany over recent decades?

 

There's no such thing as a flawless system. Any system will function badly from time to time & all systems will depend partly on checks & balances, separation/decentralisation of power etc.

 

At this election, the SNP got 45% of the vote in Scotland....and 81.3% of the seats, and is now seen as having "swept Scotland with a mandate for independence". How can that be representative democracy?

At the 2015 election, UKIP got 12.6% of the vote & 1 seat; the SNP got 4.7% & 56 seats...

 

Anyway, nothing will change for at least another 5 years now.....during which time, a massively centralised govt will exercise near-absolute power based on 42-43% of the vote, a popular slogan, a near-empty manifesto, a few identifiable policies & the unpopularity of alternative parties/leaders. I wonder what our all-powerful narcissist leader will choose to do with us for 5 years, beyond "getting Brexit done" (whatever that means, in practice)?

I did say I had some sympathy with it and I acknowledge you raise good points throughout. I did think the coalition was an effective government, more so than 2015-2017 (although the two referendums were a big part in that). I still don’t think that it’s a great barometer, just in this election you have had Lib Dem’s saying they wouldn’t work with either party. So we would have another 5 years of paralysis? 

[Carl the Llama]

44 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Maybe it's just been noticed more since the election. I've genuinely only ever seen a handful of people raise it, but now every man and his dog seems to be wanting to change the goalposts.

I think you just haven't been noticing it to be honest, I can't recall many election cycles where FPTP vs PR wasn't a widely discussed issue. It's not been a regular talking point lately, just add it to the pile of important topics drowned out by the Brexit debacle.

 

44 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

It would get rid of tactical voting and allow people to vote for whoever they want though, so that's a definite bonus.

Is there any other purpose for an election?

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I did say I had some sympathy with it and I acknowledge you raise good points throughout. I did think the coalition was an effective government, more so than 2015-2017 (although the two referendums were a big part in that). I still don’t think that it’s a great barometer, just in this election you have had Lib Dem’s saying they wouldn’t work with either party. So we would have another 5 years of paralysis? 

 

Yes, I appreciate that you have mixed feelings about electoral reform.

 

The LDs said they wouldn't work with either leader (not either party) but didn't clarify what they meant. I'm unsure whether they hoped that one of the parties (probably Labour) would change their leader if it was a hung parliament, or if it was just posturing, hoping to gain votes due to the unpopularity of the 2 main party leaders - and particularly needing to give Corbyn a wide berth as they were mainly seeking to take Tory seats in the South.

 

What a legacy Swinson leaves after her few months as leader: Revoke policy alienated some of her potential support & made any rapprochement with Labour impossible (though Labour bear plenty of blame, too); granted Boris the election he wanted in the mistaken belief that her party would do well & out of fear of the disaster of a Soft Brexit compromise in parliament, after putting all her party's eggs in being "the Remain Party"; helps Boris to a landslide & Hard Brexit, while leaving her party with little identity & even fewer MPs than in 2017 and even loses her own seat..... 

 

If there had been a hung parliament, I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems would have worked with Corbyn to legislate for a 2nd referendum & probably an agreed, very limited set of other policies on extra public spending & regional investment (most of the wilder Labour manifesto promises would've been out of the window). Though there'd have been no coalition - and probably another election within a year / once the 2nd referendum had happened.

 

Interesting, too, to wonder what would have happened if the Lib Dems hadn't cracked (followed by the SNP & Labour) and given Boris his election. Would Boris have brought his Brexit bill back - remember it passed 2nd reading by 30 votes & he withdrew it because parliament wanted more than 3 days to consider it? Would the Tories have run the clock down to No Deal? Would parliament have seized control to get a referendum? I'm pretty sure that Boris could have got his bill through with some amendments - maybe a commitment to protect employment rights & to have a parliamentary vote on an extension to the transition period? But he gambled that withdrawing his bill would get others to trigger the election he wanted - and his gamble worked, giving him absolute power for 5 years & the ability to pass his bill unamended. The Lib Dems (followed by SNP & Labour) gambled on an election - and lost everything.

[LiberalFox]

Part of the problem is we have politics that forms around the system we use. As a LD we weren't just being bloody minded by saying we wouldn't be able to work with Johnson or Corbyn (or Sturgeon). Under a different political system we might get more of the vote (not to take the electorate for granted but we did have a much more sensible manifesto than the Labour party). Under PR you would have the Greens getting some MPs, there might be room for a more Libertarian right wing party (think Mark Reckless / Douglas Carswell style UKIP ). Perhaps a centre left statist party like Change UK.

 

In Europe you tend to get coalitions yes, but they are formed from one or more groupings who come to a joint agreement on a policy direction. The Conservatives wouldn't be forming governments with the BNP or other racist party unless they were prepared to accept the near certain fallout for doing so. 

 

What we have thanks to FPTP is a more adversarial system where most people are voting to keep out another party which they don't like. Unfortunately neither the Conservatives or Labour are willing to give up their duopoly on British politics so will never support any form of PR.   

[LiberalFox]

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I appreciate that you have mixed feelings about electoral reform.

 

The LDs said they wouldn't work with either leader (not either party) but didn't clarify what they meant. I'm unsure whether they hoped that one of the parties (probably Labour) would change their leader if it was a hung parliament, or if it was just posturing, hoping to gain votes due to the unpopularity of the 2 main party leaders - and particularly needing to give Corbyn a wide berth as they were mainly seeking to take Tory seats in the South.

 

What a legacy Swinson leaves after her few months as leader: Revoke policy alienated some of her potential support & made any rapprochement with Labour impossible (though Labour bear plenty of blame, too); granted Boris the election he wanted in the mistaken belief that her party would do well & out of fear of the disaster of a Soft Brexit compromise in parliament, after putting all her party's eggs in being "the Remain Party"; helps Boris to a landslide & Hard Brexit, while leaving her party with little identity & even fewer MPs than in 2017 and even loses her own seat..... 

 

If there had been a hung parliament, I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems would have worked with Corbyn to legislate for a 2nd referendum & probably an agreed, very limited set of other policies on extra public spending & regional investment (most of the wilder Labour manifesto promises would've been out of the window). Though there'd have been no coalition - and probably another election within a year / once the 2nd referendum had happened.

 

Interesting, too, to wonder what would have happened if the Lib Dems hadn't cracked (followed by the SNP & Labour) and given Boris his election. Would Boris have brought his Brexit bill back - remember it passed 2nd reading by 30 votes & he withdrew it because parliament wanted more than 3 days to consider it? Would the Tories have run the clock down to No Deal? Would parliament have seized control to get a referendum? I'm pretty sure that Boris could have got his bill through with some amendments - maybe a commitment to protect employment rights & to have a parliamentary vote on an extension to the transition period? But he gambled that withdrawing his bill would get others to trigger the election he wanted - and his gamble worked, giving him absolute power for 5 years & the ability to pass his bill unamended. The Lib Dems (followed by SNP & Labour) gambled on an election - and lost everything.

Labour now blaming the Lib Dems for them being completely shit and losing their own heartlands to the Conservatives. 

[Alf Bentley]

43 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

Labour now blaming the Lib Dems for them being completely shit and losing their own heartlands to the Conservatives. 

 

Absolutely not. There were multiple factors in Labour losing its heartlands to the Tories. Not least: said heartlands getting little help since deindustrialisation in the 80s (including under Labour); Labour having a terrible leader with a lot of baggage; its decision to issue a long list of promises that lacked credibility, rather than a limited number of radical, but credible policies; the admittedly difficult dilemma of holding some of the country's strongest Leave seats & strongest Remain seats when Brexit was the top issue.

 

I also have some sympathy for the argument raised by @Kopfkino and others that Labour should have done more to compromise to get a Softish Brexit when May was leader - or should have gone into the election promising a referendum between Remain & Boris' Deal (though we'd have still done badly due to Corbyn/incredible wishlist of policies, I think).

 

I was partly responding to Strokes' point and trying to understand the Lib Dem strategy: the 2nd & 4th paragraphs of my previous post are analysis, not hostile criticism of the Lib Dems. My 5th/final paragraph is speculation about "what might have been".

 

My 3rd paragraph is criticism of the Lib Dems, but not of their role in Labour's failure (largely Labour's fault). It is criticism of their part in destroying any possibility of a 2nd referendum & destroying their chances of a good result for their own party, not for Labour. I'll readily admit that this result was disastrously bad for Labour & that it was largely Labour's own fault. But do you not see what a disastrous result it also was for the Lib Dems - in what should have been promising circumstances? In a country where half the electorate wanted to Remain, you were clearly identified as the main party with a clear Remain identity & the only party with a Revoke policy.....yet, despite marginally increasing your vote, you lost 1 seat overall, lost your leader & (temporarily) lost your identity by gambling everything on that Remain identity.

 

It's also a simple fact that, despite what he said, Boris desperately wanted an election as a strategic gamble to get 5 years of unrestrained power & the ability to legislate for an unamended Hard Brexit....and the Lib Dems were the ones who first gave him that opportunity (though SNP & most Labour MPs quickly followed suit). Maybe if the LDs had stood firm and resisted Johnson's ruse, Labour or the SNP would have crumbled....but that isn't what happened. The LDs presumably feared Lab Leave MPs would pass Boris' Deal with a few amendments to soften it......but that would have been a much better scenario than we face now: probably a Harder Brexit, possibly No Deal & certainly 5 years of Tory majority govt.

 

I'm genuinely sorry you didn't do better. I hoped your strategy would allow you to take a few dozen seats in the South & elsewhere, helping to deny the Tories a majority.....but your result was disastrous. Up to you to work out why, though I suspect you'd have done better without that Revoke policy & if Cable or someone else had been leader. Only Labour is to blame for Labour being rubbish....but the Lib Dems share the blame (with Labour & others) for us facing 5 years of unfettered Tory rule & a Hard Brexit.

 

Edited 16 December 2019 by Alf Bentley

[Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I also have some sympathy for the argument raised by @Kopfkino and others that Labour should have done more to compromise to get a Softish Brexit when May was leader - or should have gone into the election promising a referendum between Remain & Boris' Deal (though we'd have still done badly due to Corbyn/incredible wishlist of policies, I think).

Idk if this is just a bit of confirmation bias on my part but in hindsight it seems even more ridiculous (and I thought it pretty stupid at the time) that they didn't abstain/back May/take cross-party talks more seriously. They had a Brexit that was basically what they were asking for, essentially a customs union and single market access for goods unless another plan for the Irish border could have been devised. It also removed any chance of a no trade deal situation. They accepted the WA, just wanting changes to the PD that was never legally binding so ultimately it was futile. They couldn't bind a future Conservative government through it and getting into power themselves meant they could do whatever they wished. Okay so they didn't want to be seen as backing a Conservative Brexit and it might have pushed some people towards the Lib Dems. But. It would have caused Conservative party mutiny, been great ammo for BXP, it would have 'got Brexit done' and allowed them to fight a subsequent election on their terms with a divided Conservative party scrobbling around to find a coherent message and purpose. 

 

Of course they were always in a catch 22 on Brexit and their inability to develop a clear Brexit policy for the last 2 years is testament to the fact they were pulled in different directions. Not easy and Corbyn was the biggest problem as I said last week. but imo they'd have been better served 'getting Brexit done' in the Spring and moved onto other things whilst watching the Conservative fallout (would have stopped the LD momentum from Euro elections too).

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, twoleftfeet said:

But it is what the remainers have expected Brexiteers to do.

...can only speak for myself now, but I never have.

 

If things were inverted, I would expect the same kind of apathy from Brexiters - hopefully not resistance, but certainly not help - and would be prepared for the work accordingly. Same should apply with the current situation.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Idk if this is just a bit of confirmation bias on my part but in hindsight it seems even more ridiculous (and I thought it pretty stupid at the time) that they didn't abstain/back May/take cross-party talks more seriously. They had a Brexit that was basically what they were asking for, essentially a customs union and single market access for goods unless another plan for the Irish border could have been devised. It also removed any chance of a no trade deal situation. They accepted the WA, just wanting changes to the PD that was never legally binding so ultimately it was futile. They couldn't bind a future Conservative government through it and getting into power themselves meant they could do whatever they wished. Okay so they didn't want to be seen as backing a Conservative Brexit and it might have pushed some people towards the Lib Dems. But. It would have caused Conservative party mutiny, been great ammo for BXP, it would have 'got Brexit done' and allowed them to fight a subsequent election on their terms with a divided Conservative party scrobbling around to find a coherent message and purpose. 

 

Of course they were always in a catch 22 on Brexit and their inability to develop a clear Brexit policy for the last 2 years is testament to the fact they were pulled in different directions. Not easy and Corbyn was the biggest problem as I said last week. but imo they'd have been better served 'getting Brexit done' in the Spring and moved onto other things whilst watching the Conservative fallout (would have stopped the LD momentum from Euro elections too).

 

Yes, that's the argument that I was referring to - and well expressed. I had some sympathy for it when you raised it at the time - and have more so (hindsight is a great teacher!).

 

Your previous comment about Corbyn got me thinking again about the role of the media. I've tended to go with the idea that the mainstream media has a lot less influence these days - much lower newspaper sales, diversified range of TV channels, fewer viewers for main channels, new role of social media. But some of the stuff leveled at Corbyn, rightly or wrongly, must have been channeled via the mainstream media, even if it ended up reaching people via word of mouth, social media or whatever.

 

I don't mean stuff like the failure to deal adequately with anti-semitism or his negative personal image as a "weak leader" or discontent over his Brexit stance. Those would be, at least partly, personal impressions of him since 2015, I presume.

 

But all accounts suggest that his previous "support for the IRA" and associations with people like Hamas & Hezbollah featured strongly in condemnations of him.....well, the IRA hasn't been active for 20+ years and most of his dubious Middle East associations or comments supporting Venezuela came from before he was leader. Are we really saying that an electorate that mainly pays little attention to politics retained memories of the affiliations of an obscure backbencher for decades and then held it against him?

Surely, this mainly came from reheated press coverage produced after he became leader, referring back to "who he was"....which then got promoted online and by word of mouth and discussed as a controversial issue on TV. Maybe negative press is still more influential indirectly than I realised?

 

If so, that makes it all the more important that the new leader is someone who doesn't give hostages to fortune by having skeletons in their cupboard or saying/doing things that alienate people. The right-wing media will savagely attack almost any Labour leader (Blair is the only one in 40 years that I can remember NOT being savaged - and he went out of his way to produce moderate policies & to even dine with Murdoch as Opposition Leader). It's ironic, now, to remember Miliband - who came from a Jewish family, son of Jews who escaped the Nazis - being lambasted for looking weird eating a bacon sandwich & having a Dad who "hated Britain". But if the press do still have more influence than I thought, that needs to be a serious consideration when choosing a new leader.

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

I think you just haven't been noticing it to be honest, I can't recall many election cycles where FPTP vs PR wasn't a widely discussed issue. It's not been a regular talking point lately, just add it to the pile of important topics drowned out by the Brexit debacle.

 

Is there any other purpose for an election?

We saw plenty of people say ‘anyone but the Tories’ so were voting tactically against them and not for the party they actually wanted to run the country. Under a different system (not FPTP) they could have voted for the party they actually wanted to run the country. 

[Aus Fox]

Not a huge fan of the preferential voting system we have in Australia, a party can gain a seat based on less than 3% of the primary vote because they have made deals to ensure preferences.

In recent memory many single issue parties have through this system won seats in the senate.

In recent memory the hunters and fishers, the motoring enthusiasts party and nuclear Disarmament Party have all won seats.

These people are not great for democracy as can often trade their vote for a single small issue.

I much prefer the fptp system.

[twoleftfeet]

Whilst main stream media may of had an influence on the election, if doesnt explain how the bbc's anti brexit output didnt get any traction over three years. Infact if you look at question time in particular which have had a majority of remain panelist it probably had the effect of hardening the resolve of those in favour of Brexit.. 

 

[SheppyFox]

We’re not back to this again are we? Adding up all the losing vote counts, pretending their all remainers and claiming victory

😂
 

Most of the world and the worlds money is not in the EU, I can’t understand how anyone can not fathom that. Scotland won’t be allowed independence either so don’t concern yourselves with the UK dissolving, Sturgeon will go away before long.

Edited 16 December 2019 by SheppyFox

[Charl91]

6 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

We’re not back to this again are we? Adding up all the losing vote counts, pretending their all remainers and claiming victory

😂
 

 

As I've said before, polling still shows a very minor majority for remain. That hasn't changed.

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, I appreciate that you have mixed feelings about electoral reform.

 

The LDs said they wouldn't work with either leader (not either party) but didn't clarify what they meant. I'm unsure whether they hoped that one of the parties (probably Labour) would change their leader if it was a hung parliament, or if it was just posturing, hoping to gain votes due to the unpopularity of the 2 main party leaders - and particularly needing to give Corbyn a wide berth as they were mainly seeking to take Tory seats in the South.

 

What a legacy Swinson leaves after her few months as leader: Revoke policy alienated some of her potential support & made any rapprochement with Labour impossible (though Labour bear plenty of blame, too); granted Boris the election he wanted in the mistaken belief that her party would do well & out of fear of the disaster of a Soft Brexit compromise in parliament, after putting all her party's eggs in being "the Remain Party"; helps Boris to a landslide & Hard Brexit, while leaving her party with little identity & even fewer MPs than in 2017 and even loses her own seat..... 

 

If there had been a hung parliament, I'm pretty sure that the Lib Dems would have worked with Corbyn to legislate for a 2nd referendum & probably an agreed, very limited set of other policies on extra public spending & regional investment (most of the wilder Labour manifesto promises would've been out of the window). Though there'd have been no coalition - and probably another election within a year / once the 2nd referendum had happened.

 

Interesting, too, to wonder what would have happened if the Lib Dems hadn't cracked (followed by the SNP & Labour) and given Boris his election. Would Boris have brought his Brexit bill back - remember it passed 2nd reading by 30 votes & he withdrew it because parliament wanted more than 3 days to consider it? Would the Tories have run the clock down to No Deal? Would parliament have seized control to get a referendum? I'm pretty sure that Boris could have got his bill through with some amendments - maybe a commitment to protect employment rights & to have a parliamentary vote on an extension to the transition period? But he gambled that withdrawing his bill would get others to trigger the election he wanted - and his gamble worked, giving him absolute power for 5 years & the ability to pass his bill unamended. The Lib Dems (followed by SNP & Labour) gambled on an election - and lost everything.

I do worry though what would happen if a protest party or a single issue party held the balance of power in this country. 
I mean look at the meltdown about the tories using the DUP on a confidence and supply basis, this sort of thing would be common place. You could also get on a regular basis, the biggest party on the opposition benches. 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

As I've said before, polling still shows a very minor majority for remain. That hasn't changed.

You may be right but it is irrelevant now, Remainers best hope now, is that without needing the ERG or DUP Boris Johnson stitches them up to deliver a softer brexit. I can’t see it myself but you can never trust him can you?

[Dahnsouff]

On 15/12/2019 at 02:00, leicsmac said:

I said this on the election thread but I'll repeat it here:

 

Well, it seems now the board is yours, Brexiteers - congratulations, you have the control that you desired.

The work, the results and more importantly the responsibility now lie with you - both good or bad. You said that Brexit would be a success for the UK, now it's time to show that is the case.

The world is watching. Best of luck.

 They most certainly do not have control!

These deals with the EU run for years, that coupled with the inevitability of having to have NI closer to the EU than the 1rest of the Union - means the EU is not going away soon.

[SheppyFox]

On 15/12/2019 at 02:00, leicsmac said:

I said this on the election thread but I'll repeat it here:

 

Well, it seems now the board is yours, Brexiteers - congratulations, you have the control that you desired.

The work, the results and more importantly the responsibility now lie with you - both good or bad. You said that Brexit would be a success for the UK, now it's time to show that is the case.

The world is watching. Best of luck.

The end is nigh.

[Gordon the Great]

37 minutes ago, SheppyFox said:

The end is nigh.

Correct,.....with the state of it`s finances and in recession , the withdrawal of our contributions, and hopefully our refusal to pay the £39 billion,the end of the E.U. is surely nigh. I believe It will revert to being a small trading block of about 6 of the original members or  within 15 - 20 years, cease to exist altogether.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I do worry though what would happen if a protest party or a single issue party held the balance of power in this country. 
I mean look at the meltdown about the tories using the DUP on a confidence and supply basis, this sort of thing would be common place. You could also get on a regular basis, the biggest party on the opposition benches. 

 

I take your first point - and it's one of the reasons I oppose a national list PR system like the Israeli system. That gives tiny extreme religious parties MPs because they got a tiny percentage of the votes nationally, allowing them to hold the balance. But there's some risk of that happening under any system, including FPTP - as you point out with the DUP (a minority, sectional party, rather than a protest/single-issue party).

 

STV in multi-member seats would mean that any party would have to get something like 10%+ of the vote across a county or region. So, protest/single-issue parties with very little support would still get no MPs, but minority parties with significant support nationwide or regionally (Lib Dems, SNP, Greens, Brexit Party) would get fair support....probably meaning fewer MPs for the SNP, as it happens.

 

No system is risk-free, though more decentralisation of power to local/regional govt would spread the risk. But the risk of a party with 1-2 MPs holding the nation to ransom is overstated as govts need an effective majority - a few MPs more than the opposition - to govern reliably over time as there is always the odd MP on the govt benches who dies, falls ill, becomes a serial rebel or bonkers loose cannon or whatever.

 

I think a lot of the meltdown over the DUP was because of the heated Brexit debate and the perception that they'd just been given a big bribe for their support (not entirely true, though they got a load of spending for N. Ireland).

 

You might end up with the biggest party on the opposition benches occasionally, but I reckon they'd soon adapt their policy offer & negotiations with other parties if it was happening repeatedly. I know this has happened occasionally in countries with forms of PR (certainly in Ireland, possibly in Germany?) but it hasn't happened regularly. But then the "biggest party" sometimes ends up in opposition under FPTP: in 1951, Attlee's Labour got more votes than the Tories, who formed a majority govt; in Feb. 1974, the Tories got most votes & Labour formed a minority govt; if 2019 had led to a hung parliament, we'd have probably had some sort of Lab/LD/SNP arrangement, at least short term for a referendum, despite the Tories winning most votes & seats.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

 They most certainly do not have control!

These deals with the EU run for years, that coupled with the inevitability of having to have NI closer to the EU than the 1rest of the Union - means the EU is not going away soon.

Sorry but a govt with a majority as large as they've got have no excuse if they fail to deliver on key election pledges, surely even hard line Tories will be unimpressed if 5 years from now we're still hearing that the EU and/or remoaners and/or labour are to blame for x, y and z.  You could be forgiven for forgetting it lately but personal responsibility is normally the mantra of conservative voters.

[Dahnsouff]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sorry but a govt with a majority as large as they've got have no excuse if they fail to deliver on key election pledges, surely even hard line Tories will be unimpressed if 5 years from now we're still hearing that the EU and/or remoaners and/or labour are to blame for x, y and z.  You could be forgiven for forgetting it lately but personal responsibility is normally the mantra of conservative voters.

So the Good Friday agreement should just go? It is bound by internation law, it will clearly have (and has) a huge impact on border controls. This is one international bindong agreement, but there are other contractual agreements in existence signed between the UK and EU. 

Time to stop the politics and look at the law and what can actually be achieved within it. Brexit will be soft, it seem unavoidable.

[Voll Blau]

12 hours ago, String fellow said:

If Scotland were to become independent, what would happen to the UK-wide parties such as the Conservatives, who still have constituencies up there. Presumably they'd just disappear and the SNP would then head up a left-wing one-party state. Perish the thought!

Hardly. The SNP currently form a minority government at Holyrood.

[WigstonWanderer]

Hopefully Boris’ form of Brexit will speed up the formation of a united Ireland.