Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
So you are saying that we are a group of nation states, that should leave a larger grouping of nation states, remaining as part of this smallet group of nation states, because being part of a group of nation states prevents us from functioning as a nation state? Glad we cleared that one up.
I did said that it was arguable that Britain or the UK were a group of nation states, as the Scots certainly would argue that. I didn't say we should leave the EU, I don't know where you got that from, and I'm not sure who said anything about being prevented from functioning as a nation state but it certainly wasn't me. Still, one out of three's not bad I suppose.

I suspect you may be mixing me up with someone else Wibs.
 
As in the US, there's too much power and authority vested in the leader. May's holding Parliament and the nation hostage.

To be fair, May could be booted out tomorrow if the Tories wanted rid of her - just that no one else wants to step up.
 
As far as the first part is concerned, not at the present, because the same trading laws/regulations/tariffs currently apply in the north and south. If there are changes in the future then customs checks may become necessary, however by then we are told reliably that the new customs technology advances we hear about should be operating everywhere.
Trade deals will change as an when required, at the moment its hard to see how things would change rapidly as it would not be in the interests of either side for that to happen, neither side , as I understand it, actually wants to stop trading with each other, certainly not on the Island of Ireland.

That isn't how it works. Countries don't just decide ad hoc how to deal with custom checks. They're an essential part of any of the trade agreements we are already in, and want to enter into. Just deciding we don't care about that is what the WTO guards against, and is one of the main reasons a no deal outcome is particularly difficult to manage. Especially in the immediate aftermath.
 
The goverment are doing their usual trick again, promise the same as the amendment to get it to fail and then they'll water it down to their favour.

Tory remainer idiots will fall for it and Letwins amendment won't pass
 
The goverment are doing their usual trick again, promise the same as the amendment to get it to fail and then they'll water it down to their favour.

Tory remainer idiots will fall for it and Letwins amendment won't pass

Yep. Looks likely that the amendment will fail:

 
I did said that it was arguable that Britain or the UK were a group of nation states, as the Scots certainly would argue that. I didn't say we should leave the EU, I don't know where you got that from, and I'm not sure who said anything about being prevented from functioning as a nation state but it certainly wasn't me. Still, one out of three's not bad I suppose.

I suspect you may be mixing me up with someone else Wibs.

I meant to say to "so @Steerpike is saying" - now edited, sorry for the confusion. And of course I was joking. Sort of. I guess groups of countries are ok as long as you can boss the other members around at will.
 
Are indicative votes the MPs having to say what they would be in favour of? If so why would the government not want to know the current state of things?
 
Are indicative votes the MPs having to say what they would be in favour of? If so why would the government not want to know the current state of things?

Because what a majority of MP's want is unlikely to be what May wants, so she doesn't want to know.
 
You're wrong about England not being a nation state, it was pretty homogeneous with an agreed government before the Norman conquest, as @Steerpike says. Everyone, bar possibly the Cornish, spoke the same language, and that language wasn't spoken elsewhere. It's arguable GB or the UK isn't a nation state, but a group of nations, you may be getting confused with that.

The rest is about right, except it tends to apply to about half of the British, and not the other half, which is of course the problem in the first place.
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
 
There were no nation states at that time. None. At least not in the way that term is usually defined.

If you use a VERY loose definition (a united country where most people speak the same language) then yeah, sure. But that's not how it's usually defined, at least on the continent.
Well yeah, the major European states were cobbled together in recent times by England's standard. Can't help that I'm afraid :)
 
Richard Harrington has resigned as a business minister and will likely vote in favour of the Letwin amendment tonight
 
They're voting now on the Letwin amendment. Labour decided not to move amendment D, which was a vaguer form of the Letwin amendment.
 
I mean how much more evidence do you need that the Government criminally incompetent. If you dont vote for Letwin then you are a disgrace.
 
they are talking on Sky about a general election. But would a general election solve this?

Probably not, no, but considering we're doing everything we can to put off actually reaching a conclusion on this, wouldn't surprise me if that's their next step...
 
Government defeated

MPs have voted in favour of Sir Oliver Letwin's amendment for the Commons to seize control of the parliamentary timetable from the government and vote on alternative Brexit options this Wednesday.

Ayes: 329

Noes: 302

Majority: 27