Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[garbon]

And Jesus, why did the UK think it was a good idea to make a notorious liar and buffoon PM in these trying times? Septic isle indeed.

same reason the US thought it was a good idea I guess.  But one correction.  It was not the UK.  It was the Conservative party.

Yeah seems misplaced to put him on the whole UK

[garbon]

Nancy Pelosi said that if there is no Irish back stop a US-UK trade deal will not get through the House.

Which is kind of an odd position to take.

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

[Iormlund]

So Corbyn is finally suggesting a caretaker government to stop No Deal ... with him as PM.

So the choices for Remainers are to have Boris go through with No Deal or to put another Brexiteer in power. 

[Admiral Yi]

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

She's prioritizing an issue that the US only has a peripheral, largely sentimental, interest in, in an area of policy, foreign affairs, that has by tradition and the Constitution been the exclusive purview of the executive branch, without any regard to the merits of the hypothetical trade deal.

Though in passing I was under the impression that only the Senate had to confirm treaties.

[Tamas]

Britain got to cherry pick customs union membership and basically single market membership without freedom of movement in the WA, but they considered that not an astonishing diplomatic success, but failure. They will never get such a deal again. It only gets worse now...

This was one of the biggest showcases of May's incompetence in PR and marketing, I think.

It didn't take much reading to realise that between the end of the transitional period (about a year) and the signing of a permanent trade deal, the WA granted full benefits of EU membership WITHOUT forcing freedom of movement. It was, in fact, a near-perfect compromise between what people most cared about (unwashed white people from Eastern Europe entering the premises), and damage limitation.

If Johnson made that same deal, he would had been all over the country and the news, happily pointing out that he personally has indeed had the cake and ate it as well. Whereas May and her staff utterly failed to drive this fact home.

[Zanza]

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

She's prioritizing an issue that the US only has a peripheral, largely sentimental, interest in, in an area of policy, foreign affairs, that has by tradition and the Constitution been the exclusive purview of the executive branch, without any regard to the merits of the hypothetical trade deal.

Though in passing I was under the impression that only the Senate had to confirm treaties.

I think changing tariffs is considered a tax change and that's why the House has to approve it.

[The Larch]

Isn't the US also one of the guarantees of the Good Friday Agreement, together with the EU?

[Tamas]

Isn't the US also one of the guarantees of the Good Friday Agreement, together with the EU?

Worrying about treaties and promises given is sooooo 2015.

[Josquius]

So Corbyn is finally suggesting a caretaker government to stop No Deal ... with him as PM.

So the choices for Remainers are to have Boris go through with No Deal or to put another Brexiteer in power. 

Pff.
For someone who didn't much care for the pursuit of power before he is really desperate to be pm these days.

A tory remainer, or even soft brexiter, would be the sensible compromise caretaker.

[Tonitrus]

How about a Lib Dem?

[grumbler]

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

She's prioritizing an issue that the US only has a peripheral, largely sentimental, interest in, in an area of policy, foreign affairs, that has by tradition and the Constitution been the exclusive purview of the executive branch, without any regard to the merits of the hypothetical trade deal.

Though in passing I was under the impression that only the Senate had to confirm treaties.

I think changing tariffs is considered a tax change and that's why the House has to approve it.

A treaty is ratified in the Senate, but any implementation acts have to be passed by the House.  See:  NAFTA and the "North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act" passed by the House on November 17, 1993.

[Iormlund]

How about a Lib Dem?

The LibDems have wisely proposed Clarke (tory) or Harman (Labour).

Corbyn's move is a good one. If he succeeds he is the incumbent PM in the new elections and might be able to negotiate his deal with the EU if he wins. If he loses he gets Brexit under Boris, which is his preferred outcome anyway. The LibDems get blamed either way (for putting him in pwoer or letting No Deal happen).

[Valmy]

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

She's prioritizing an issue that the US only has a peripheral, largely sentimental, interest in, in an area of policy, foreign affairs, that has by tradition and the Constitution been the exclusive purview of the executive branch, without any regard to the merits of the hypothetical trade deal.

Though in passing I was under the impression that only the Senate had to confirm treaties.

The House had to confirm NAFTA. I watched it on C-SPAN.

[The Brain]

Doesn't seem that odd. Takes the wind out of conservative sails on how much better trade deals will be / them not caring about heating the situation up again in NI.

She's prioritizing an issue that the US only has a peripheral, largely sentimental, interest in, in an area of policy, foreign affairs, that has by tradition and the Constitution been the exclusive purview of the executive branch, without any regard to the merits of the hypothetical trade deal.

Though in passing I was under the impression that only the Senate had to confirm treaties.

The House had to confirm NAFTA. I watched it on C-SPAN.

How heavy was your TV?

[The Brain]

And Jesus, why did the UK think it was a good idea to make a notorious liar and buffoon PM in these trying times? Septic isle indeed.

same reason the US thought it was a good idea I guess.  But one correction.  It was not the UK.  It was the Conservative party.

Which was the party in government. To me the UK can use whatever methods it wants in its democracy, it's an internal UK matter. I will judge it by its results. In this case Boris as PM. If people didn't want crap government they shouldn't have voted Tory.