Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[classycarra]

Which is absurd.

But being pragmatic, we need to find a solution that satisfies all sides.

Absurd? That's a weird word to use. Did you already read it that quickly?

[alonsoisared]

https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-remainers-can-no-longer-take-yes-for-an-answer-11790224

Good piece (imo of course) on the negative reaction from remainers despite being given the first genuine root to stopping this mess since it all began.

[redmark]

Nick Boles (an independent, former Tory, MP) rules out supporting a government of national unity that has Corbyn as its leader.

That's a slightly slanted summary of the letter. He primarily rules out any VoNC while Johnson 'appears' to be pursuing a deal and suggests focusing on legislative efforts to prevent No Deal.

[ShakaHislop]

That's a slightly slanted summary of the letter. He primarily rules out any VoNC while Johnson 'appears' to be pursuing a deal and suggests focusing on legislative efforts to prevent No Deal.

And even if Johnson no longer appears to be pursuing a deal, he makes it clear he would not support a GoNU led by Corbyn. Is he going to get the same stick for that Swinson has had?

[Jiminy Cricket]

I agree with ShakaHislop and Classycara on this. It might not be my position, but it is not absurd. Nick Boles is against a No-Deal Brexit. But he is not against Brexit per se. He is also against the proposition that Corbyn could be PM, no matter how short the tenure. Now, I have huge reservations about Corbyn being in that role - I would not absolutely rule it out - but Noles's position is very understandable. But at the end of the day, none of this is pertinent to the augment at hand. The only thing which matters: is there an MP who would command the confidence of the majority of the HoC to be PM? Clearly, this is not Corbyn: will he stand aside and help facilitate an alternative who is acceptable; will he do whatever he can to prevent the Government from circumventing the will of the Parliament? I think these are entirely reasonable questions.

[redmark]

And even if Johnson no longer appears to be pursuing a deal, he makes it clear he would not support a GoNU led by Corbyn. Is he going to get the same stick for that Swinson has had?

Probably not, because he's an independent MP not the leader of a party whose entire pitch is about how we must "work together" to prevent No Deal, but not with the leader of the opposition.

[redmark]

I agree with ShakaHislop and Classycara on this. It might not be my position, but it is not absurd. Nick Boles is against a No-Deal Brexit. But he is not against Brexit per se. He is also against the proposition that Corbyn could be PM, no matter how short the tenure. Now, I have huge reservations about Corbyn being in that role - I would not absolutely rule it out - but Noles's position is very understandable. But at the end of the day, none of this is pertinent to the augment at hand. The only thing which matters: is there an MP who would command the confidence of the majority of the HoC to be PM? Clearly, this is not Corbyn: will he stand aside and help facilitate an alternative who is acceptable; will he do whatever he can to prevent the Government from circumventing the will of the Parliament? I think these are entirely reasonable questions.

They are, but they're not really relevant to Boles' letter, because he wants to work on legislative opposition to No Deal and not a VoNC while the government says it's pursuing a deal. By the time that falls down, a VoNC will be too late to prevent No Deal.

[ShakaHislop]

Probably not, because he's an independent MP not the leader of a party whose entire pitch is about how we must "work together" to prevent No Deal, but not with the leader of the opposition.

Working together to stop No Deal and putting the leader of the opposition in power do not have to go hand in hand, and you know that.

Have any of the Tories who have refused to back Corbyn attributed, even in part, their refusal to Swinson's early rebuff of Corbyn? If not, is it unreasonable to assume they would have made the same decision regardless of what Swinson said, and when?

[ShakaHislop]

They are, but they're not really relevant to Boles' letter, because he wants to work on legislative opposition to No Deal and not a VoNC while the government says it's pursuing a deal. By the time that falls down, a VoNC will be too late to prevent No Deal.

It's possible to pass a VoNC and install a new GoNU on the same day, no? It could also send off the request to extend Article 50 on the same day too.

[ShakaHislop]

A majority of Northern Ireland Assembly members have signed a joint letter to @donaldtusk confirming their support for the backstop.

Letter signed by Sinn Féin, SDLP, Alliance & Green Party leaders.

https://twitter.com/DarranMarshall/status/1164505904135512065

DUP MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson criticised those who signed the letter, saying they "want to foist a deal on Northern Ireland which every unionist party opposes" and questioned their commitment to a shared future.

"Those who pedal scare stories about barbed wire and soldiers on checkpoints are being irresponsible," he said.

"Neither London nor Dublin have any plans to go back to the borders of the 70s and 80s, even in a no-deal scenario." 

Is that true?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49435880

[redmark]

It's possible to pass a VoNC and install a new GoNU on the same day, no? It could also send off the request to extend Article 50 on the same day too.

The FTPA 2011 is a bit woolly, but I sort of assume not - the government has an opportunity to 'regain' the confidence of the house within the 14 day period.

[ShakaHislop]

The FTPA 2011 is a bit woolly, but I sort of assume not - the government has an opportunity to 'regain' the confidence of the house within the 14 day period.

I interpret the focus of the 14 day period being that a general election happens at the end of it, if "a" government, not necessarily "the" government can't gain the confidence of the House. So if a GoNU can demonstrate it has the confidence straight after the vote of no confidence, then that's a GE avoided (for the time being at least) and it's full steam ahead.

[redmark]

Working together to stop No Deal and putting the leader of the opposition in power do not have to go hand in hand, and you know that.

Have any of the Tories who have refused to back Corbyn attributed, even in part, their refusal to Swinson's early rebuff of Corbyn? If not, is it unreasonable to assume they would have made the same decision regardless of what Swinson said, and when?

Whether they say it or not, Swinson's early intervention made it easier for them to refuse to work with Corbyn (it's sort of like him rightly being criticised for being the first politician to demand the immediate invoking of Article 50). Imagine if a reluctantly united Labour-Lib-SNP-PC-Green anti-No Deal coalition was a few votes short; would those Tories hell bent on avoiding No Deal still be so adamantly opposed to a temporary Corbyn led administration?

Anyway - I don't actually oppose Swinson's position on this, so much as her premature timing and self-assertion as the 'leader' of a compromise that isn't very compromising and a pretence that she isn't playing party politics just as much as Corbyn is. (Again, sort of like the Lib Dem tweets yesterday announcing themselves as a 'Shadow' cabinet, when the shadow cabinet is the official opposition).

That we disagree is also fine - you're a Lib Dem supporter/member and I'm (more or less) still a Labour supporter/member. That neither of us actually wants Corbyn as a 'real' PM may become a bigger issue later. But probably not.

[redmark]

I interpret the focus of the 14 day period being that a general election happens at the end of it, if "a" government, not necessarily "the" government can't gain the confidence of the House. So if a GoNU can demonstrate it has the confidence straight after the vote of no confidence, then that's a GE avoided (for the time being at least) and it's full steam ahead.

This is a fairly old article about Salmond pointing out some holes in the act, but has a section discussing what I'd agree is a largely ambiguous area at the heart of it:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/not-so-fixed-term-parliaments-act

Let’s assume the government loses a vote of confidence, triggering the 14-day grace period. Here we hit a big ambiguity at the heart of the legislation: who governs during the next 14 days? Previously, an incumbent Prime Minister losing a vote of confidence would either resign immediately, handing power to a successor; or stay in as a sort of caretaker government while a second election was held – James Callaghan did the latter when we last saw a defeat on confidence in 1979. However, the 14-day clock only stops when a new government is approved by the House – and this requires a new government to already be in place: the wording specifically says that the motion must be “confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. And at the point when the previous government has lost a vote of confidence, it may not be obvious that their opponents could themselves win one. So must the outgoing PM immediately resign and pass the reins to the leader of the Opposition, even if their chances of assembling a parliamentary majority look slender? Or should they hang on and await the outcome of negotiations, despite having lost a vote of confidence? Both solutions would be ugly and controversial.

A PM put in this position might be tempted to make it difficult for their rival to hold a new vote of confidence, and thus to form a government. And such blocking tactics would not be without precedent: in 2008, Canadian premier Stephen Harper secured a prorogation (suspension) of Parliament in order to forestall a vote of confidence. However, prorogation would require the Sovereign to exercise this remaining Royal Prerogative in support of a government which had clearly lost confidence. This drags the Queen into political manoeuvring in a way that Buckingham Palace has been keen to avoid.

Assuming our hard-pressed PM dismisses this option, they would have one further way out. Because under our constitution the powers of government are vested in the Prime Minister, they could simply hand over the leadership to a party colleague – creating a new government that could have another go at winning a vote of confidence. This would technically meet the Act’s requirements; and our political history is full of different PMs of the same party forming new governments of slightly different composition. Ultimately, it would be up to the House to decide by voting their confidence. But again, the Sovereign would be put in a difficult position, as the Queen would have to appoint the new PM before they could put forward a new confidence motion.

Of course, all of this depends on whether party leaders use the Act in these ways. The Act has been understood as a means to allow for a new government to be formed and replace the incumbent, and there would be massive political pressures in anyone being seen to abuse its provisions. If used as intended, it would bring in a government led by the former Opposition. Yet even this would be challenging in our political culture: how many changes of government could we see without an election?

If the incumbent government does resign, FTPA could mean, to take one possible scenario, a Tory minority government is replaced by a Labour-led administration with the ambition and potential to govern right through till 2020. And this second government could itself be displaced without an election if a further vote of no confidence is won. There is nothing in the Act that restricts the number of times we go through the merry-go-round of a government falling and a further government being formed.

[Zeb]

Yeah, that is old. MPs tried to resolve some of the ambiguity, as did the government, via the Cabinet Manual - I think I quoted it a few pages back.

eg. from 2018.

6. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides legal certainty only about certain matters. It is silent on what might occur during the 14-day period following a statutory vote of no confidence under Section 2(3). This is to some extent inevitable because what occurs during this period will depend on the circumstances that led to the vote of no confidence. As the Clerk of the House told us, what occurs during the 14-day period is matter of politics and not procedure. The 14-day period allows time for confidence in Her Majesty’s Government to be re-established. Whether this is done through a change in personnel, policy or party is entirely a matter for the political process. (Paragraph 34)

7. The Cabinet Manual is a helpful guide on what should occur. It is clear that, during the 14-day period following a vote of no confidence under Section 2(3), the Prime Minister is under a duty not to resign unless and until it is clear another person commands the confidence of the House. It is also clear that in the event that it becomes apparent that another person could command the confidence of the House the Prime Minister would be expected to resign. Not to resign in such a circumstance would risk drawing the Sovereign in to the political process, something the Cabinet
Manual is very clear should not occur. (Paragraph 35)

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/1813/1813.pdf (pdf)

The problem is that this is all convention rather than law and the issues with Johnson are 'what if he doesn't want to resign until the 2 weeks are up?' and 'how does the Commons signal someone else does have the confidence of the House?'.

[Billy The Kid]

People can't say they weren't warned.

Tony Blair and Sir John Major unite to warn of Brexit threat

https://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-09/tony-blair-sir-john-major-eu-referendum-northern-ireland/

That's great and all, but why weren't they saying that more vociferously back in 2016? 

Why weren't they more active in pulling Johnson and his cronies on their bullshit when they were using downright untruths to validate their Brexit agenda?   

Blair was one of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement for fucks sake! Arguably one of the most politically significant agreements signed in the last quarter century

He should know more than most just how fragile peace is in Northern Ireland and really ought to have done more sooner to remind people of that fact

There's a few politicians in the North who ought to hang their heads in shame too. Fucking morons! 

[TepidT2O]

That's great and all, but why weren't they saying that more vociferously back in 2016? 

Why weren't they more active in pulling Johnson and his cronies on their bullshit when they were using downright untruths to validate their Brexit agenda?   

Blair was one of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement for fucks sake! Arguably one of the most politically significant agreements signed in the last quarter century

He should know more than most just how fragile peace is in Northern Ireland and really ought to have done more sooner to remind people of that fact

There's a few politicians in the North who ought to hang their heads in shame too. Fucking morons! 

In Blair’s case this is because his involvement tends to have a negative effect these days.

[cowtownred]

In Blair’s case this is because his involvement tends to have a negative effect these days.

But could he have done more, encouraged others, to support his single greatest achievement in office?  (Not at all underplaying the roles of John Major, George Mitchell, Aherne and John Hume plus others.....  but Blair got it across the line).

[Billy The Kid]

In Blair’s case this is because his involvement tends to have a negative effect these days.

I understand Blair is seen as somewhat of a political villain across the sea, in much the same way that Ahern is seen as somewhat of a shyster here in Ireland

That being said however, anyone over 40 years of age can surely acknowledge the roles that both played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement?

Love him or hate him, surely anyone with half a brain knows that he's more qualified than most to comment on Northern Ireland's political and socio-economic wellbeing?

It just all smacks of "not enough was done" and "all to little to late" to me mate

[Billy The Kid]

But could he have done more, encouraged others, to support his single greatest achievement in office?  (Not at all underplaying the roles of John Major, George Mitchell, Aherne and John Hume plus others.....  but Blair got it across the line).

I agree

[Skeeve]

It wasn't my intention to offer truths except the undeniable fact that the Labour party policies to end austerity are clearly there in their manifesto.  What I'm arguing is that maybe those close to Corbyn know more that those that are no so close, and depend on the media in order to form an opinion.

It will be tricky to do anything about austerity once the economy crashes due to the negative impact of brexit, which they have most definitely failed to oppose with their parroting of the 'will of the people' idiocy and being the first to call for article 50 to be invoked.

[Sangria]

In Blair’s case this is because his involvement tends to have a negative effect these days.

Blair wrote an article in the Guardian about the benefits to the economy, culture, identity, etc. of being part of the European community. You can guess what the comments were like. Iraq, war criminal, blood on his hands, if he says it's beneficial it must mean the opposite, etc. Much of the left would rather be ruled by the far right and have Britain turn into a shithole than admit that Blair may have a point when he says something.

[Sangria]

I understand Blair is seen as somewhat of a political villain across the sea, in much the same way that Ahern is seen as somewhat of a shyster here in Ireland

That being said however, anyone over 40 years of age can surely acknowledge the roles that both played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement?

Love him or hate him, surely anyone with half a brain knows that he's more qualified than most to comment on Northern Ireland's political and socio-economic wellbeing?

It just all smacks of "not enough was done" and "all to little to late" to me mate

Brain cells disappear when it comes to the left and Blair.

[TepidT2O]

I understand Blair is seen as somewhat of a political villain across the sea, in much the same way that Ahern is seen as somewhat of a shyster here in Ireland

That being said however, anyone over 40 years of age can surely acknowledge the roles that both played in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement?

Love him or hate him, surely anyone with half a brain knows that he's more qualified than most to comment on Northern Ireland's political and socio-economic wellbeing?

It just all smacks of "not enough was done" and "all to little to late" to me mate

Yeah agreed.


But the half a brain bit?

Brexit? 

You can see the problem. 

But Blair is incredibly toxic here, especially for labour voters and the Labour Party leadership who hate him beyond all else.
Crazy eh?

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Brain cells disappear when it comes to the left and Blair.

[redmark]

That's great and all, but why weren't they saying that more vociferously back in 2016? 

Why weren't they more active in pulling Johnson and his cronies on their bullshit when they were using downright untruths to validate their Brexit agenda?   

Blair was one of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement for fucks sake! Arguably one of the most politically significant agreements signed in the last quarter century

He should know more than most just how fragile peace is in Northern Ireland and really ought to have done more sooner to remind people of that fact

There's a few politicians in the North who ought to hang their heads in shame too. Fucking morons! 

Brexit isn't about facts and logic, it's about emotions, discontent and some distorted sense of identity. The more people warned of the dangers - including Ireland - the more it was dismissed as project fear, the more entrenched the emotions and warped identity, the more people like Blair were dismissed as the 'elite' imposing a multicultural neo-liberalism substituted for the pains of austerity. People don't want difficult problems and awkward facts, they want some nonsensical nirvana where we're a major world power again, without pesky foreigners taking all the jobs. Or something.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Brexit isn't about facts and logic, it's about emotions, discontent and some distorted sense of identity. The more people warned of the dangers - including Ireland - the more it was dismissed as project fear, the more entrenched the emotions and warped identity, the more people like Blair were dismissed as the 'elite' imposing a multicultural neo-liberalism substituted for the pains of austerity. People don't want difficult problems and awkward facts, they want some nonsensical nirvana where we're a major world power again, without pesky foreigners taking all the jobs. Or something.

problem is when the shit hits the fan...

[ShakaHislop]

Interesting to see McDonnell and Abbott sounding a lot more positive on Remain

Thornberry too.

Pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to ditch Labour Brexit deal as two closest allies back Remain in any circumstances

Pressure is mounting on Jeremy Corbyn to ditch Labour’s policy of getting a new Brexit deal as two of his closest allies said they want to stay in the EU whatever the circumstances.

Diane Abbott said she and John McDonnell will “personally be campaigning for Remain” if there is another referendum.

She confirmed this will be the case even if the other option on the ballot paper is a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by their own party leader.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the Shadow Home Secretary said staying in the bloc was the "best option for the country and for my constituents".

She said: "We are, of course, the party's committed to a referendum now and Jeremy's (Corbyn) made that clear and if there is a referendum and if Remain is on the ballot paper and there's every expectation it will be, I - like John McDonnell - personally will be campaigning for Remain."

Mr McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, had told the same programme yesterday: “I think generally people want to provide the electorate with a choice.

“I’ve made it clear from my personal position that I’ll be campaigning for Remain. I think that’s the best choice.

“But people will want to have a say and see whether there is another option. But we’ve had that debate in Parliament and that’s why I’ve come down in favour of Remain, because I can’t see one that will have the same benefits as Remain.”

Afterwards Ms Abbott tweeted: “Great interview by John McDonnell on Brexit. He says when there is a Brexit referendum he will campaign for Remain. So will I.”

Shadow foreign secretary Emily Thornberry replied to her by tweeting: “And so will I Diane.”

After Mr Corbyn, the three of them are the most senior members of the Shadow Cabinet and their stance, which goes beyond the official party position, will increase pressure on the Labour leader ahead of a potential election campaign.

The party has previously indicated if there was a second referendum while they were still in opposition they would back Remain over a “Tory Brexit deal”.

But last month, Mr Corbyn wrote to members saying Labour’s plan for a compromise deal with Brussels remains their official policy if they got into power themselves.

The Labour leader said: “We continue to believe this is a sensible alternative that could bring the country together.”

And asked at a speech in Corby on Monday if that was still the plan, he said: “In a general election, we will put forward the opportunity for people in this country to have the final say.

“It is not a rerun of 2016. It is simply saying the people of this country should make the final decision.

“If it is no deal versus Remain then obviously John McDonnell and others made it very clear we would support Remain.

“If there is the opportunity for some other option to be put then that will be put. I want to bring people together.”

Ms Abbott said Labour woud "come to a democratic decision" on Brexit.

But she said of Mr Corbyn: "He can't stay to the side on an issue like this - what he can do is bring the two sides together.

"The party and the shadow cabinet will have to debate this and arrive at a position - whatever the position is Jeremy will follow what the party says."

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/106019/pressure-jeremy-corbyn-ditch-labour

Abbott seemed to be pushing back at the end there against the idea McDonnell floated at the start of this week that Labour could take an officially neutral stance in a 2nd referendum.

[redmark]

problem is when the shit hits the fan...

It will be someone else's fault. Probably brown people.

[Alan_X]

That's great and all, but why weren't they saying that more vociferously back in 2016? 

Why weren't they more active in pulling Johnson and his cronies on their bullshit when they were using downright untruths to validate their Brexit agenda?   

Blair was one of the signatories of the Good Friday Agreement for fucks sake! Arguably one of the most politically significant agreements signed in the last quarter century

He should know more than most just how fragile peace is in Northern Ireland and really ought to have done more sooner to remind people of that fact

There's a few politicians in the North who ought to hang their heads in shame too. Fucking morons! 

If only they'd spoken out...

Major and Blair say an EU exit could split the UK

9 June 2016

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36486016

Tony Blair and John Major: Brexit would close Irish border

Heather Stewart Political editor

Thu 9 Jun 2016 13.16 BST

Former prime ministers stress impact of leave vote on Irish and Scottish relations with UK after referendum

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/09/tony-blair-and-john-major-brexit-would-close-irish-border

EU referendum: John Major and Tony Blair warn Brexit would 'jeopardise the unity' of the UK

Laura Hughes, Political Correspondent

9 June 2016 • 3:22pm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/09/eu-referendum-tory-mp-sarah-wollaston-to-defect-from-leave-campa/

UK Top News
June 9, 2016 / 8:15 AM / 3 years ago
Blair and Major warn Brexit would threaten UK unity

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nireland/blair-and-major-warn-brexit-would-threaten-uk-unity-idUKKCN0YV0L0

[Alan_X]

And here's Arlene talking absolute shite in response...

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-tony-blair-and-john-major-eu-intervention-disgraceful-says-dup-leader-arlene-foster-34786703.html

[Iska]

She confirmed this will be the case even if the other option on the ballot paper is a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by their own party leader.

Hahaha.  Let’s see the leadership cabal triangulate around that one.

[oldfordie]

And here's Arlene talking absolute shite in response...

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-tony-blair-and-john-major-eu-intervention-disgraceful-says-dup-leader-arlene-foster-34786703.html

That is shocking. she is accusing Blair and Major of scaremongering over the NI border.
Is she this stupid or has she got a ulterior motive, I put it down to stupidity. she has never wondered how the EU have been able to have frictionless trading, she must of thought anyone can have it as long as they agree to have it. she is clueless.
Ive not found anything from Corbyn pre referendum on the Irish Border, strange considering he's always banging on about peace.maybe he was the same as Arlene, he took frictionless trading for granted as well without giving much thought to how it can be achieved.

[Robinred]

Hahaha.  Let’s see the leadership cabal triangulate around that one.

I know I’ve banged the same drum until it’s boring and predictable, but it’s very simple: Corbyn is Milne’s puppet and Milne is the poison that Labour needs shot of. Getting shot of both would be a huge bonus.

[Jiminy Cricket]

That is shocking. she is accusing Blair and Major of scaremongering over the NI border.
Is she this stupid or has she got a ulterior motive, I put it down to stupidity. she has never wondered how the EU have been able to have frictionless trading, she must of thought anyone can have it as long as they agree to have it. she is clueless.
Ive not found anything from Corbyn pre referendum on the Irish Border, strange considering he's always banging on about peace.maybe he was the same as Arlene, he took frictionless trading for granted as well without giving much thought to how it can be achieved.

The interview is from before the Referendum (June 9 2016). Still complete bollocks, though, and her comments have not aged very well.

[oldfordie]

The interview is from before the Referendum (June 9 2016). Still complete bollocks, though, and her comments have not aged very well.

That's the point though, very few people had the foresight to understand the implications of a vote to leave on the Irish border before the referendum. Blair and Major did and they were called
scaremongers by Arelene. why did she call them scaremongers is the question, was it to lay the blame for a decisive split from the republic on the republic and the EU or was it ignorance.

[Alan_X]

That's the point though, very few people had the foresight to understood the implications of a vote to leave on the Irish border before the referendum. Blair and Major did and they were called
scaremongers by Arelene. why did she call them scaremongers is the question, was it to lay the blame for a decisive split from the republic on the republic and the EU or was it ignorance.

Ignorance. Simple as that. And in it's most literal sense - ignorance isn't just not knowing - it's having the information available but ignoring it through dogma, lack of imagination , lacking the mental skills to process the information or a donkey-like stubbornness.

[naka]

Arlene, the DUP and TUV want a hard border don’t underestimate this desire
The union to them is more important than the economy.
These guys even what a celebration of the founding of the North even though in 2021 there will be a nationalist majority.

Turning though to the backstop the way out is to allow a mini referendum on it with in Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the population  over 60% here want it

[Jiminy Cricket]

Arlene, the DUP and TUV want a hard border don’t underestimate this desire
The union to them is more important than the economy.
These guys even what a celebration of the founding of the North even though in 2021 there will be a nationalist majority.

Turning though to the backstop the way out is to allow a mini referendum on it with in Northern Ireland as the vast majority of the population  over 60% here want it

They may want the Union more than anything, but they are actually incentivising its breakup. Alan suggests that they are ignorant - I suggest that they are effin stupid.

[cowtownred]

They may want the Union more than anything, but they are actually incentivising its breakup. Alan suggests that they are ignorant - I suggest that they are effin stupid.

Precisely.