Posted before I clicked his link to euro election results.

Still hasn't changed the fact you're a liar and fantasist who supports war criminals involved in the murder of hundreds of thousands.

Gfy trying to talk down to me.

During the 20th century, by a significant margin and with a markable lack of 2nd preference voting for SF on the part of the SDLP voters. You say you lived it, but if you don't know that how old were you at around the time of Good Friday Agreement?

Already said I posted before I knew you were talking about euro elections.

Plenty old enough to get searched/harassed numerous times in a day by the army (mid 20's).

--

This is a nice distraction from having to talk about the implications of brexit.

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/gallsum.htm

Ok. I won't mention NI again if you don't.

Lots of reasons for SF poor showing in elections previous to 2001. The media ban, targeted for death daily and being a bit busy fighting and killing which gave more than a few good reason not to vote SF.

Never had any love for SF even though I once (only once) voted for them. But to keep putting labels on them now is pointless. Ffs Charlie was at Glasnevin cemetery today and laid a wreath in the republican plot. In 100 years another Prince may just do the same in Miltown cemetery.

I'm sure in your/GBV eyes Mandela was a terrorist until his death.

Think it's fair to talk about NI and the lack of interest by the tories as far as brexit is concerned. The rest not so interesting.

Not available right now because I took it all, but I've just bet some "No" on EU in/out membership before 1 Jan 2019. Odds 1.96.

cant we just offer the norway option (eea membership, no custom union, single market) and get this whole thing over with in a week or two?

I'm not sure it changes much. Tories may or may not elect a new leader who will be just as eurosceptic as May. Parliament will be presented with the deal that person negotiates on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Even though there might be a majority in parliament for a soft Brexit, they can't unilaterally vote for a Norway option that the PM hasn't negotiated with Europe. There might be more focus on NI. But related to Ireland, we can stop their citizens being able to live, work and vote on the UK mainland if they cut up rough.

A few Tories might refuse to back a eurosceptic PM without guarantees that the 'hate EU' brigade wont accept.

The pound dropped last night which must mean that British people voted on something again.

the logic of the situation doesnt change either. freedom of movement means polish immigrants which many people will hate. and there isnt a single market without some common regulation which will be even harder for the uk to accept when it's decided without them.

you can probably fudged the edges of those issue, but the essence of it will remain

+1 i don't see what guarantees about negotiations any PM can be forced to give. That he/she will prioritize single market access over control of immigration? Seems to be ignoring the referendum.

Without that then any guarantee is meaningless because she can always say "I couldn't get X because they wanted open door immigration as a consequence".

It's impossible to start meaningful negotiations when you're unlikely to be around to finish them and have to check what you say is okay with footloose townfolk of the DUP.Hard BREXIT but porous border and strictly no dancing or abortions.
Oh what a tangled web we weave Mrs May

Yeah, May can't guarantee anything when half a dozen MP's can get together on any issue and vote her down.

I'm guessing ther Tories are just stalling till they can come up with a viable candidate and policies for a subsequent election. This just cannot work.

The situation on the other side of the negotiations with the deal having to be checked by 27 countries, themselves also all governed by minority governments or multi-party coalitions is just as bad.

That's why IMHO we should accept hard Brexit, and concentrate on getting trade deals with the other 90% of the world. Have a soft border with NI from our side and if the EU orders the Republic to put a hard border across their island from their side and/or fill in forms every time a dog or horse crosses the border then they can make arrangements accordingly.

Or just admit it was all a big mistake.

"The situation on the other side of the negotiations with the deal having to be checked by 27 countries, themselves also all governed by minority governments or multi-party coalitions is just as bad. "

Just for the education of an idiot 'Merican, who the **** thought that was a good idea? You set yourself up to have one bat**** crazy country hijack the entire EU if they decide it's a good idea - or until they get paid off in one way or another. Why not 2/3 or something?

MM MD

nick clegg on what a eea/efta option would roughly look like https://www.ft.com/content/f8b09872-...4-c742b9791d43

on one hand it makes sense. roughly half the population wants to remain and supposedly some of the rest would also be alright with it.

but on the other hand it's just pretty hard to see it actually happening. are british politicians really going to accept that they're bound to implement eu directives on free movement of goods, persons, services and capital as iceland is? and then accept (maybe slightly adjusted) freedom of movement too?

and a reminder that corbyn is still completely ****ing useless at this stuff

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Labour tho was softer on immigration. So the difficulty of balancing trade access and immigration is not as pronounced for them as the Tories.

Davis spinning there imo.

There's a major difference in that most of those countries there is no reallistic expectation of any party holding a "do-as-we-please" type landslide majority. Stasis is built into their systems. So the politicians behave accordingly and tend to be more disciplined.
The UK Conservatives by contrast are extremely arrogant and disloyal, and naturally expect a permanent, gargantuan mandate. They have a working majority-a luxury for many euro parties, but the conservatives are already throwing a hissy fit.

he's right it's the same brexit though. it's leaving the single market, ending freedom of movement and ending up with some useless free trade agreement. the motivation might be somewhat different, corbyn wants to nationalise industries or whatev and the tories want to **** over immigrants, but it makes no difference to the end result. they're useless

Many decisions can be done with "qualified majority" in the council, but there are a few areas that require unanimity.

That requirement is in place because there are concerns about giving up too much sovereignty in some of the more eurosceptic countries (most importantly the UK i guess), so they want to have veto right for core decisions. This obviously isn't ideal, but as long as the UK is in there this wasn't going to change anytime soon.

Pretty much nobody thinks its a good idea, but the alternatives are a "United States of Europe" which is unacceptable to the public in most countries, or to leave/break it up - which so far only the voters of the UK have chosen. Also it depends on the issue - over the years there has been a gradual increase the number of things individual countries can be out-voted on - it's now reached the point that it's close enough to the USE to be unacceptable to British people - though the man in the street mostly sees the physical manifestations such as the European flag, national anthem, currency etc. as signs that it seeks to be a rival to our own countries for allegiance, rather than the constitutional stuff.

I agree with this, though its also the media pushing the same view.

I think this quote from France provides a good counter-view:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40242531

"Socialist leader Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, who lost his seat in the first round, warned voters against giving LREM an absolute majority next Sunday.
He said it would result in "virtually no real opposition and we will have a National Assembly without any real counterbalance, without a democratic debate and not worthy of that name".

"There's a major difference in that most of those countries there is no reallistic expectation of any party holding a "do-as-we-please" type landslide majority. Stasis is built into their systems. So the politicians behave accordingly and tend to be more disciplined."

Yeah, that was probably true in the original version of the EU - but I'd argue that as it moved east and south, the do-as-we-please problem seems to have become a lot more likely. It just seems to me odd that one out of 28 or so members of a supposed Union can shut the machine off whenever they wish. But whatever.....as I said, I'm an idiot 'Merican. We have our own issues over here.....

MM MD