as I said "DUP believing him and believing they wil get more out of him than a beleaguered May." - I cant see how he brings the DUP along with him.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
True
May is trying to push through a deal with a backstop they don't want. Corbyn could promise them otherwise.
he has done right? He wants a UK wide customs border - no backstop.
It was the PM who told him to stay away - he was going to vote so the Conservatives didn't pair.
So then all that remains is to denounce his terrorist friends and promise to protect the sanctity of the Union.
But he doesn't believe in the sanctity of the Union - he could say he believes in the sanctity of the GFA and let demographics do its job I suppose.
You mean Ed "should have been David" Milliband?
His brother would be PM with a comfortable majority IMO. The opinion polls repeatedly showed that the public didn't trust Ed with the economy - no number of better policies would have eradicated that lack of trust.
This is the dilemma of a party leader. It's simple enough to have his principles and beliefs as a weirdo backbencher who nobody except students listens to. It's something else altogether to hold those principles and try to get anything done in the real world.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
...And push the party agenda as well, not just his own.
To my knowledge the current government have never supported a group whose aim was to terrorise the UK. Corbyn has.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I don't think the EU have a choice.
Remember EFTA was created by Britain as a opposition organisation to the EEC - it's an independent organisation, not an EU one.
EFTA has an arrangement with the EU. But EFTA members decide who become members of EFTA. Which is basically Norway, as Switzerland would naturally be keen
I think you are right, it wouldn't have been a Labour government though but more New Labour. Ed came across as a wally during the election, since when I have heard him speaking naturally this has not been the case.
A Nato member - I think an argument could be made that 9/11 also terrorized the UK.
It would allow them to join EFTA but not necessarily the EEA.
http://www.efta.int/About-EFTA/Frequently-asked-questions-EFTA-EEA-EFTA-membership-and-Brexit-328676
If the UK would re-join EFTA, would it automatically become party to the EEA Agreement?
Not automatically, as each EFTA state decides on its own whether it applies to be party to the EEA Agreement or not. According to Article 128 of the EEA Agreement, “any European State becoming a member of the Community shall, and the Swiss Confederation or any European State becoming a member of EFTA may, apply to become a party to this Agreement. It shall address its application to the EEA Council.” The EEA Council takes political decisions leading to the amendment of the EEA Agreement, including the possible enlargement of the EEA. Decisions by the EEA Council are taken by consensus between all EU Member States on the one hand and the three EEA EFTA States - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway - on the other.
It would be very difficult for the EU to claim to want a deal but to also reject our membership into the EEA. Not that I believe being politically duplicitous is in any way outside the norms of the EU, let alone within their will.
You have to take a couple of fairly huge leaps to make that analogy work.
The largest probably being the fact that the IRA are not Ireland and Al Qaeda were not Saudi Arabia. Corbyn associating with actual members of the IRA is not the same as the British government having dealings with the government of a country in which some terrorists were born. The British government have never been involved in newspapers supporting the 9/11 bombings and, to my knowledge, have never invited members of Al Queda into parliament.
at the least they are doing nothing to stop Saudi citizens sponsoring terrorism but its widely believed it is state sponsored terrorism including Afghanistan and Pakistan who are fighting UK and US forces. This is not conspiracy theory.
I agree, that response was to GB who said they had no control over membership to EFTA (and I assume EEA).
I'm not defending the actions of Saudi Arabia, but suggesting that they were in some way behind 9/11 is getting a little too "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel" for me.