Another new Brexit thread

[Hesperus]

The big risk is that anything that the government brings before parliament before a GE will be hijacked for a confirmatory vote to be committed

Unless the MPs have changed their minds. There was no appetite for this. There isn’t enough of a majority in the current parliament to do this or they would have done so already.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

He was complaining about my calling him deluded. "Incoherent" and "pitiful superficiality" are comments he's made on my posts.

No idea what the quote is about. It doesn't trip off the tongue, does it?

I thought it described Johnson’s negotiating team.

 

[George Hannah]

Unless the MPs have changed their minds. There was no appetite for this. There isn’t enough of a majority in the current parliament to do this or they would have done so already.

There was a remain majority for the Benn Act, if they thought a No Deal was on the cards I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar one for a second referendum before a GE. If the EU don't approve an extension I would guess the same majority would also vote to revoke.

 

[Hesperus]

There was a remain majority for the Benn Act, if they thought a No Deal was on the cards I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar one for a second referendum before a GE. If the EU don't approve an extension I would guess the same majority would also vote to revoke.

There wasn’t a remain majority for the Benn act. There was a majority to stop a no deal. Two different things.

I very much doubt the EU wouldn’t approve an extension. It’s not in their interests.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

But.... This election will be all about Brexit. The public are already geared up for this.

My prediction is that:

• we’ll have and extension.
• There will be a GE before Xmas.
• Conservatives will win, and Brexit party gain seats.
• Together the Tories and Brexit and DUP will have enough seats to win a vote for a no deal brexit.
• The EU will the offer some sort of compromise deal on the Johnson deal.
• This will get approved in parliament
• We’ll leave.
• If the EU don’t offer a compromise, we’ll leave on a no deal and all the pain that will involve.

Hope I’m wrong but this is the way I see it playing out. The opposition, and labour in particular, in a GE are too weak.

I would say this is a fairly accurate depiction of the Tory’s current plan.
I won’t claim to know if they will get their majority or not, but let’s assume they do.

It puts them then in a position where they genuinely have the no deal threat, because they could implement it through Parliament.

Currently no deal is not the threat mcfc1632 thinks it is.
A couple of reasons.
1. Your own Parliament outlawing it.
2. No credible plan against it.
I.e. no deal is the least worst option.

If they get a majority you will then see if they are genuine about wanting a deal because they still have to present a viable option that will be accepted by us and the EU before presenting it for a vote in Westminster.
I wouldn’t be too hopeful of any deal getting through that will be dependent on a DUP vote of confidence.
Why?
Because this is an existential argument and not an economical one.
You needn’t bother trying to apply your normal trade and economics logic to the situation along the NI border.

I don’t believe Johnson or his advisors understand this fully. There is s lot more riding on this in this island than pure trade.
I’m not sure how much is understood in England in general.

 

[George Hannah]

I’d say that is what is happening, along with the need to make the lack of progress in negotiations everyone else’s fault.

All talk of collusion and sycophants is irrelevant whether you believe it or not.
Ineptitude in Parliament is the real issue.

There is nothing duplicitous about the Irish/EU stance in this.

You are the ones leaving and the reason you haven’t is the state of your parliament. You are in this mess and it needs sorting domestically before you come near the EU. The dishonesty in your political classes is not going to suddenly disappear after this is eventually sorted one way or another.

I fear you will find out that most of your inequalities, unhappiness and divisions in society are home grown and nothing to do with Europe.

You give all the appearance of the being a reasonable sort of fellow then you slip in "There is nothing duplicitous about the Irish/EU stance in this."
This is an extract from an article I linked earlier which I find to be a balanced analysis - it describes the subcontracting of RoI bilateral negotiations to the EU which I think was extremely duplicitous.

"Ireland plans

Brussels was not the only European capital where politicians and civil servants had been preparing for Brexit.
One adviser on European affairs to a prominent EU27 leader said Dublin had begun lobbying other EU countries in the months before the referendum to ensure Ireland was protected in the event of decision by the U.K. to leave. “If there is one player which made Ireland go to the top of the agenda, it was Ireland,” the adviser said. The Irish were pushing on an open door. EU members were always going to give priority to the vital interests of a member state over those of a country that had decided to turn its back on the Union — just as they had sided with Cyprus over the Turkish Cypriots, despite Brussels’ support for a peace deal for the divided island that the Turkish Cypriots had accepted and the Greek Cypriots voted to reject.

That Ireland felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Northern Irish peer Paul Bew, one of the chief architects of the Good Friday Agreement, said Dublin’s preparation was typical of the Irish in their long history of negotiations with Britain. “They are on top of the detail, and we [the British] are incurious. The people at the top of the U.K. government are also paralyzed by imperial guilt.”

The contrast with London was stark. While Cameron refused to allow officials to prepare for a Leave vote — barring officials from putting anything on paper — Ireland had produced a 130-page Contingency Plan with an hour-by-hour checklist. On the morning the referendum result was announced, then Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny made a statement intended to reassure the markets and Irish citizens. Its central thrust was blunt: Ireland would remain a committed member of the EU. The point was so important he repeated it.

“Ireland will, of course, remain a member of the European Union,” Kenny declared. “That is profoundly in our national interest.” His government, he said, had “prepared to the greatest extent possible for this eventuality.”

That Ireland, which joined the bloc along with the U.K. in 1973, felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Not only do the two countries share a lengthy and complex colonial history, they remain uniquely intertwined. The two countries share a common travel area — a mini Schengen — a language, and of course, a common land border, one with a violent history quieted by a delicate peace agreement that Brexit threatened to unravel

Hard border

The problem posed by the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was evident long before the U.K. voted to leave.
On June 9, 2016, two weeks before the referendum, former U.K. Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair visited Northern Ireland to warn that the future of the union was “on the ballot paper” and that a Leave vote risked the return of border controls with the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland and the U.K. had agreed a common travel area in the 1920s and joined the EU together in 1973. There had never been a moment when one country was in the EU and the other not.And yet, for all its preparations, Dublin had not come up with a solution.

In Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on June 27 he said the British and Irish governments would start discussion that week to “work through the challenges relating to the common border area.”

In early scoping exercises, according to “Brexit & Ireland,” by Tony Connelly, Europe editor at the Irish broadcaster RTÉ, Dublin had proposed a U.K.-Ireland bilateral trade agreement for agriculture to avoid the return of a hard border.

This had been rejected out of hand by the EU as illegal.

The Anglo-Irish talks went on for months. Even as May was setting out her “red lines” at the Tory Party conference, Irish and British civil servants were meeting in the Foreign Office in London for a two-day summit, with Brexit on the agenda.

"There was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse" — Senior EU official

These bilateral talks — taking place before the Brexit negotiations had officially started — soon caught the attention of Brussels, where officials were becoming concerned.
“From the autumn onwards, they had their diplomacy on the ground, taking everyone through the details of the Good Friday Agreement,” said one senior EU official intimately involved in the negotiations. “But there was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse.”

A few days after May’s speech at the party conference, Michel Barnier, the Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, arrived in Dublin. The message was clear: Stop negotiating with the British. From then on, it would be Brussels that took on responsibility for the Irish border."

 

[George Hannah]

There wasn’t a remain majority for the Benn act. There was a majority to stop a no deal. Two different things.
I very much doubt the EU wouldn’t approve an extension. It’s not in their interests.

I think the rebels who voted for Benn were all remainers and would do so again to stop No Deal. I agree the EU wants to approve an extension in the event a WA doesn't materialize but suspect there will be a veto. In that event revoke will be the almost certain outcome.

 

[west didsblue]

Look I know that you are obsessed with me and proper frustrated that I do not bother to respond to your goading.

That is because a lot of us on here know that all you want to do is cause personal arguments

I am happy to ignore the vast majority of your petty/snide posts and just occasionally point out that it is what you continually do - just in case someone does spot the extent to which you try and destroy these threads

OK - I will ignore the next couple of dozen or so

You really haven’t got a clue have you.

 

[Vic]

You give all the appearance of the being a reasonable sort of fellow then you slip in "There is nothing duplicitous about the Irish/EU stance in this."
This is an extract from an article I linked earlier which I find to be a balanced analysis - it describes the subcontracting of RoI bilateral negotiations to the EU which I think was extremely duplicitous.

"Ireland plans

Brussels was not the only European capital where politicians and civil servants had been preparing for Brexit.
One adviser on European affairs to a prominent EU27 leader said Dublin had begun lobbying other EU countries in the months before the referendum to ensure Ireland was protected in the event of decision by the U.K. to leave. “If there is one player which made Ireland go to the top of the agenda, it was Ireland,” the adviser said. The Irish were pushing on an open door. EU members were always going to give priority to the vital interests of a member state over those of a country that had decided to turn its back on the Union — just as they had sided with Cyprus over the Turkish Cypriots, despite Brussels’ support for a peace deal for the divided island that the Turkish Cypriots had accepted and the Greek Cypriots voted to reject.

That Ireland felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Northern Irish peer Paul Bew, one of the chief architects of the Good Friday Agreement, said Dublin’s preparation was typical of the Irish in their long history of negotiations with Britain. “They are on top of the detail, and we [the British] are incurious. The people at the top of the U.K. government are also paralyzed by imperial guilt.”

The contrast with London was stark. While Cameron refused to allow officials to prepare for a Leave vote — barring officials from putting anything on paper — Ireland had produced a 130-page Contingency Plan with an hour-by-hour checklist. On the morning the referendum result was announced, then Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny made a statement intended to reassure the markets and Irish citizens. Its central thrust was blunt: Ireland would remain a committed member of the EU. The point was so important he repeated it.

“Ireland will, of course, remain a member of the European Union,” Kenny declared. “That is profoundly in our national interest.” His government, he said, had “prepared to the greatest extent possible for this eventuality.”

That Ireland, which joined the bloc along with the U.K. in 1973, felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Not only do the two countries share a lengthy and complex colonial history, they remain uniquely intertwined. The two countries share a common travel area — a mini Schengen — a language, and of course, a common land border, one with a violent history quieted by a delicate peace agreement that Brexit threatened to unravel

Hard border

The problem posed by the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was evident long before the U.K. voted to leave.
On June 9, 2016, two weeks before the referendum, former U.K. Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair visited Northern Ireland to warn that the future of the union was “on the ballot paper” and that a Leave vote risked the return of border controls with the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland and the U.K. had agreed a common travel area in the 1920s and joined the EU together in 1973. There had never been a moment when one country was in the EU and the other not.And yet, for all its preparations, Dublin had not come up with a solution.

In Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on June 27 he said the British and Irish governments would start discussion that week to “work through the challenges relating to the common border area.”

In early scoping exercises, according to “Brexit & Ireland,” by Tony Connelly, Europe editor at the Irish broadcaster RTÉ, Dublin had proposed a U.K.-Ireland bilateral trade agreement for agriculture to avoid the return of a hard border.

This had been rejected out of hand by the EU as illegal.

The Anglo-Irish talks went on for months. Even as May was setting out her “red lines” at the Tory Party conference, Irish and British civil servants were meeting in the Foreign Office in London for a two-day summit, with Brexit on the agenda.

"There was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse" — Senior EU official

These bilateral talks — taking place before the Brexit negotiations had officially started — soon caught the attention of Brussels, where officials were becoming concerned.
“From the autumn onwards, they had their diplomacy on the ground, taking everyone through the details of the Good Friday Agreement,” said one senior EU official intimately involved in the negotiations. “But there was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse.”

A few days after May’s speech at the party conference, Michel Barnier, the Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, arrived in Dublin. The message was clear: Stop negotiating with the British. From then on, it would be Brussels that took on responsibility for the Irish border."

Where exactly is any duplicity?

 

[Postman Pep]

Ok - you are not bright enough to even understand something so basic as I posted. So to put an end to your embarrassment.

1. I have repeatedly said that we will not see movement unless and until they are faced with the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it. I am absolutely correct in that opinion and I have been entirely consistent.

2. I have indeed expressed disgust and frustration that the Remainers/sycophants at Westminster have acted for in excess of 3 years to undermine the UK's negotiating position and, in particular, ensure that the EU never has to face the prospect of a viable walk-away option and the political will to use it. I am absolutely correct in that opinion and I have been entirely consistent.

3. I have recently commented that - on this thread - there has been a lot of evidence that the negotiating strength of a no-deal prospect has been proven to be true. This is an entirely different point to 1 or 2 above - and obvious if you had the wit to understand it, but you clearly are either too dim to discern that or just too eager to jump in and throw insults. The evidence has been abundant with Remainers (not you) suddenly having a 'road to Damascus' moment and, as the threat of a no-deal started to take on a feeling of momentum, started expressing all sorts of comprises that they were willing to make.

All these suggestions of compromise where previously there have, in the main, only been determination that Brexit should be scrapped. This is the demonstration of what happens when the threat of a no-deal outcome has to be faced up to. So, I am absolutely correct in that opinion and I have been entirely consistent.

You are just too bombastic and limited in comprehension to understand this and - having confused yourself in your need to rush to insult those that you are incapable of debating with - made yourself look pretty childish.

Anyway, I will leave it there - we have been asked not to get tied up in personal arguments and I can see that you are determined to do that. So get on with arguing with yourself - you have at least an even money chance of having some of your points accepted.

Unfortunately today's 1632 bingo was cancelled due to the confusion caused by the dual mention of viable walk away option and the political will to use it and the lack of an unfettered backstop ): Road to Damascus was an eyecarcher though

 

[joe123]

Where exactly is any duplicity?

Ha, struggling with that one myself. Sounds remarkably like they’re looking to protect their own interests. Shock horror.

 

[mcfc1632]

A deluded eye-witness:

"The freedom to liberalise trade and open our economy up to new markets, serving as an open and competitive counterweight to the politics of Donald Trump and China, and forging for Britain a role as a global beacon of free enterprise and achievement."

Potty.

But - as an eye-witness - he was able to confirm what some of us have said on here for a very long time...…………...

That Robbins took the negotiations away from the DExEU very early on and totally undermined that department and the SoSs

An inconvenient truth for some on here that have been in denial of simple facts for years because it does not fit their need for narrative.

 

[mcfc1632]

Polling expert and political scientist Sir John Curtice explained Boris Johnson's Brexit strategy focusses on swaying voters from the Brexit Party and capitalising on a split Remainer vote. During an interview with Express.co.uk, Sir John explained by taking votes away from the Labour Party, Jo Swinson is handing Boris Johnson a Brexit gift. With the Remain vote split, this could result in the Tory Party winning more seats which would better allow him to pass a Brexit deal through Parliament.

Some of us have been trying to explain that scenario for some time

 

[mcfc1632]

Reading over emotional garbage laced with mistruths and implying blame lies anywhere but with the Government has just turned me 51/49 in favour of remain. The implication that those civil service workers were not natural brexiteers is a disgrace as it demeans the whole nature of the civil service and he should know better if he is as he claims a civil servant himself.

When the fuck will halfwits like that writer realise his vision of unicorns for breakfast dinner and tea is so far removed from reality it is ridiculous. I am sick of being treated like a halfwit by cunts like him with his notions of a free trade utopia.

You post good stuff mate normally, I suggest you don't post this sort of garbage again as it demeans your argument.

I am/was seeking to prove a particular point - that Robbins took responsibility for the Negotiations away from DExEU - something that a number on here are in convenient denial about - that was the main purpose

It should not be necessary to prove what is blindingly obvious - but that is what Brexit has done to some on here

Also there are no end of posts from me being very clear that Leavers have more reasons to be pissed off with the governments incompetence - I do not place the blames anywhere else

 

[mcfc1632]

Simply, all those that plainly contradict your view that the failure of Brexit is attributable solely to actions of leavers. My opening remark related to the tone not the content of your post as you well know - I agree Brexit Central is not a source we should link without serious health warnings.

I agree Brexit Central can hardly be viewed as 'impartial' - but the guy was able to confirm the facts of what some on here try and deny

Also - for every Brexit Central link there has been on here there have probably been several 100s of Guardian ones

 

[mcfc1632]

Unless the MPs have changed their minds. There was no appetite for this. There isn’t enough of a majority in the current parliament to do this or they would have done so already.

I think that situation has changed

The main Remain supporters are now genuinely concerned that there will be a Leave majority after a GE and they may well prefer the referendum route

 

[mcfc1632]

I would say this is a fairly accurate depiction of the Tory’s current plan.
I won’t claim to know if they will get their majority or not, but let’s assume they do.

It puts them then in a position where they genuinely have the no deal threat, because they could implement it through Parliament.

Currently no deal is not the threat mcfc1632 thinks it is.
A couple of reasons.
1. Your own Parliament outlawing it.
2. No credible plan against it.
I.e. no deal is the least worst option.

If they get a majority you will then see if they are genuine about wanting a deal because they still have to present a viable option that will be accepted by us and the EU before presenting it for a vote in Westminster.
I wouldn’t be too hopeful of any deal getting through that will be dependent on a DUP vote of confidence.
Why?
Because this is an existential argument and not an economical one.
You needn’t bother trying to apply your normal trade and economics logic to the situation along the NI border.

I don’t believe Johnson or his advisors understand this fully. There is s lot more riding on this in this island than pure trade.
I’m not sure how much is understood in England in general.

Good post, but re:

1. Your own Parliament outlawing it.

Well that would no longer be the case if the Conservatives were returned with a workable majority

2. No credible plan against it.

I understand and acknowledge your later comments on the depth/breadth of feeling on the Island of Ireland not being understood in England, but...………….

I still seriously doubt that the EU would go for the option that would quickly place Germany and other EU countries into recession and cause widespread damage to Ireland for many years to come - not if there was another option that could be see 'as a victory' - we have previously discussed what that would likely be and Johnson's proposal could be readily negotiated to that outcome​

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

You give all the appearance of the being a reasonable sort of fellow then you slip in "There is nothing duplicitous about the Irish/EU stance in this."
This is an extract from an article I linked earlier which I find to be a balanced analysis - it describes the subcontracting of RoI bilateral negotiations to the EU which I think was extremely duplicitous.

"Ireland plans

Brussels was not the only European capital where politicians and civil servants had been preparing for Brexit.
One adviser on European affairs to a prominent EU27 leader said Dublin had begun lobbying other EU countries in the months before the referendum to ensure Ireland was protected in the event of decision by the U.K. to leave. “If there is one player which made Ireland go to the top of the agenda, it was Ireland,” the adviser said. The Irish were pushing on an open door. EU members were always going to give priority to the vital interests of a member state over those of a country that had decided to turn its back on the Union — just as they had sided with Cyprus over the Turkish Cypriots, despite Brussels’ support for a peace deal for the divided island that the Turkish Cypriots had accepted and the Greek Cypriots voted to reject.

That Ireland felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Northern Irish peer Paul Bew, one of the chief architects of the Good Friday Agreement, said Dublin’s preparation was typical of the Irish in their long history of negotiations with Britain. “They are on top of the detail, and we [the British] are incurious. The people at the top of the U.K. government are also paralyzed by imperial guilt.”

The contrast with London was stark. While Cameron refused to allow officials to prepare for a Leave vote — barring officials from putting anything on paper — Ireland had produced a 130-page Contingency Plan with an hour-by-hour checklist. On the morning the referendum result was announced, then Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny made a statement intended to reassure the markets and Irish citizens. Its central thrust was blunt: Ireland would remain a committed member of the EU. The point was so important he repeated it.

“Ireland will, of course, remain a member of the European Union,” Kenny declared. “That is profoundly in our national interest.” His government, he said, had “prepared to the greatest extent possible for this eventuality.”

That Ireland, which joined the bloc along with the U.K. in 1973, felt the need to reiterate its commitment is illustrative of how the country’s leaders saw Brexit as an existential threat. Not only do the two countries share a lengthy and complex colonial history, they remain uniquely intertwined. The two countries share a common travel area — a mini Schengen — a language, and of course, a common land border, one with a violent history quieted by a delicate peace agreement that Brexit threatened to unravel

Hard border

The problem posed by the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was evident long before the U.K. voted to leave.
On June 9, 2016, two weeks before the referendum, former U.K. Prime Ministers John Major and Tony Blair visited Northern Ireland to warn that the future of the union was “on the ballot paper” and that a Leave vote risked the return of border controls with the Republic of Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland and the U.K. had agreed a common travel area in the 1920s and joined the EU together in 1973. There had never been a moment when one country was in the EU and the other not.And yet, for all its preparations, Dublin had not come up with a solution.

In Cameron’s statement to the House of Commons on June 27 he said the British and Irish governments would start discussion that week to “work through the challenges relating to the common border area.”

In early scoping exercises, according to “Brexit & Ireland,” by Tony Connelly, Europe editor at the Irish broadcaster RTÉ, Dublin had proposed a U.K.-Ireland bilateral trade agreement for agriculture to avoid the return of a hard border.

This had been rejected out of hand by the EU as illegal.

The Anglo-Irish talks went on for months. Even as May was setting out her “red lines” at the Tory Party conference, Irish and British civil servants were meeting in the Foreign Office in London for a two-day summit, with Brexit on the agenda.

"There was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse" — Senior EU official

These bilateral talks — taking place before the Brexit negotiations had officially started — soon caught the attention of Brussels, where officials were becoming concerned.
“From the autumn onwards, they had their diplomacy on the ground, taking everyone through the details of the Good Friday Agreement,” said one senior EU official intimately involved in the negotiations. “But there was always a worry that the Irish were the Brits’ Trojan Horse.”

A few days after May’s speech at the party conference, Michel Barnier, the Commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, arrived in Dublin. The message was clear: Stop negotiating with the British. From then on, it would be Brussels that took on responsibility for the Irish border."

George, I am indeed a reasonable sort. Thanks for that, I think.
I hadn’t seen that article before, it’s a good read, but I think it is pretty much in agreement with what I have written in here.
It clearly shows that Ireland pointed out the difficulties that would arise from Brexit long before the vote was taken. We did our homework. A 130 page dossier. We presented it in advance within the member states and did not do anything duplicitous towards Britain.
We started bilateral talks in good faith with your government to seek an understanding first and a solution and if anything the EU thought this may be duplicitous and stopped those talks.

I don’t have a problem with that either as the EU is the correct body to be heading negotiations.

I genuinely don’t find anything hidden in the Irish stance. It clearly is a defense of the GFA and it was always going to be an existential argument which really did need pointing out to your government if they truly have an interest in sorting out the Irish border question once and for all.

You see, to me, that is what the GFA has done. It was painstakingly put together precisely to that end.

Brexit in my mind is incompatible with this and that is why there is no UK solution.
There is an English Nationalist solution which doesn’t care about the consequences of destroying the GFA and your current negotiations are being driven by an English Nationalist agenda.
As I be said previously English Nationalism to me, is not the terrible concept that is conjured up by some, but call this what it is. Be honest about it.
If that is the agenda, then the only satisfactory outcome I can see is the breakup of the Union.

I think a United Ireland referendum now under those circumstances would be absolutely toxic as seen already from Arlene Foster’s rhetoric. The DUP would employ the same tactics of identifying an enemy they can rally against and you would see a campaign along familiar sectarian lines.

George. This is an almighty mess that started and was compounded by ineptitude in your parliament. I’m not saying that they are stupid. There are very clever people scheming in all parties. But if none of you trust them, why on earth do you think we should, with our futures.

Ok, we are all throwing words like duplicity around, but how else would you describe all of your parliament at the moment.

 

[Ifwecouldjust.......]

It comes to something when Mary Lou McDonald, the leader of Sinn Fein talks more sense on LBC about Brexit than any other British MP I have heard.

Very measured and true to her beliefs.

If it were not for Sinn Fein's historic position on fealty to the crown, she would make a might fine Prime Minister.

she would ... I have posted some of her stuff before about how they will push for a reunification referendum once this shit storm is over. I've also completed today my application today to become a citizen of the Eu ... don't know how I'll get on with that

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Good post, but re:

1. Your own Parliament outlawing it.

Well that would no longer be the case if the Conservatives were returned with a workable majority

2. No credible plan against it.

I understand and acknowledge your later comments on the depth/breadth of feeling on the Island of Ireland not being understood in England, but...………….

I still seriously doubt that the EU would go for the option that would quickly place Germany and other EU countries into recession and cause widespread damage to Ireland for many years to come - not if there was another option that could be see 'as a victory' - we have previously discussed what that would likely be and Johnson's proposal could be readily negotiated to that outcome​

Really depends on whether they still need the DUP.
An acceptable solution with a border down the Irish Sea will not be acceptable to them.
We’ll wait and see.

Either way it has to be an extension and GE.