Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Options
12357…333

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Do the people of Dublin give a **** about Letterkenny?

    Yes. An awful lot of them also give a shit about the Irish in the northeast of Ireland too unlike how the English feel about Orangemen and Unionists.
    "I went down to the Houses of Parliament during the debate around the Anglo Irish Agreement and I heard ... Unionist politicians making very powerful speeches ... about principle and sacrifice, talking about the Somme and the commitment the Unionist people made to the Empire and to Britain. In response to that I heard them being laughed at, and they weren't being laughed at by left-wing labour MP's, they were being laughed at by this new breed of Tories"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1xZJVYhAc4#t=10m28s


  • Options
    #123
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Why don't the English have their own devolved assembly Fred? Ye'd have a very prosperous state if you didn't have to subsidise Scotland and Wales nevermind the northeast of Ireland.

    Why is that?


  • Options
    #124
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Why don't the English have their own devolved assembly Fred? Ye'd have a very prosperous state if you didn't have to subsidise Scotland and Wales nevermind the northeast of Ireland.

    Why is that?

    A very good question and something that is, in my opinion, more urgently required than a Scottish referendum.


  • Options
    #125
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Why don't the English have their own devolved assembly Fred? Ye'd have a very prosperous state if you didn't have to subsidise Scotland and Wales nevermind the northeast of Ireland.

    Why is that?
    Because, historically, their domination at Westminster is so great they don't need a separate English assembly. They can nearly always get Westminster to act as England wishes, or in England's best interests.


  • Options
    #126
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    They can nearly always get Westminster to act as England wishes, or in England's best interests.

    Why is it in England's wishes/interests to 'keep' Scotland seeing as it costs the English taxpayer as a dependency?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Why is it in England's wishes/interests to 'keep' Scotland seeing as it costs the English taxpayer as a dependency?
    Couple of points:

    In the first place, Westminster isn't committed to keeping Scotland as a dependency, or indeed to keeping it at all. They legislated for a Scottish independence referendum back in 2014 and I don't think anybody doubts that, if the referendum had passed, Westminster would have refused to accept the outcome.

    Secondly, Scotland doesn't really cost the English taxpayer as a dependency. The proportion of UK public expenditure attributed to Scotland is greater than the proportion of UK revenue attributed to Scotland if you leave oil royalties out of the equation, which the Treasury figures do. But if you attribute the oil revenues to England or Scotland according to whose waters the reserves would be located in, which Scots would argue is the appropriate basis for the comparison, this ceases to be true.

    Thirdly, there's more than finances at stake here. It's on the back of an English vote, obviously, that the UK will leave the EU. (Yes, Wales also voted to leave, but Wales is so small that this is not signficant. Had Wales voted the other way, the overall vote would still have been to leave.) So if Scotland leaves the UK because they think the Brexit vote is disastrous and will have bad outcomes, that's a vote of no confidence in the decision made by the English, and a loss of face for the English. We know that attitudes to Brexit, on the "Leave" side, weren't really driven by considerations of economic best interests; there were appeals to "sovereignty!" and "immigration!" and "control!Q" that I think resonated. I think the same is true of English attitudes to the Union with Scotland; it's not really about the money. It's about what Scottish independence would imply about England.


  • Options
    #128
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    In the first place, Westminster isn't committed to keeping Scotland as a dependency, or indeed to keeping it at all.

    I disagree. If Westminster wasn't committed to keeping Scotland, dependency or otherwise, then why were the three leaders of predominantly English political parties despatched* on the same day to three different locations in Scotland to argue for the so-called union?
    The visit was announced on Tuesday after polls indicated a narrowing of the lead that the pro-Union Better Together campaign has over the pro-independence Yes Scotland campaign.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29126386

    Shouldn't the Tories want rid of Scotland if, as you say, Westminster isn't committed to keeping Scotland at all?


    *by who?


  • Options
    #129
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    I disagree. If Westminster wasn't committed to keeping Scotland, dependency or otherwise, then why were the three leaders of predominantly English political parties despatched* on the same day to three different locations in Scotland to argue for the so-called union?
    Westminster, and the UK political establishment generally, favours the Union, in much the way that Brussels, and the EU political establishment, favour their Union. But in neither case are they so committed to the Union that they will prevent people leaving; the EU has an exit mechanism embedded in the Treaty of Lisbon and, while the UK doesn't have the same embedded mechanism, there's a recent precedent of Westminster legislating to hold a Scottish independence referendum which is not something that, legally, they had to do.
    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Shouldn't the Tories want rid of Scotland if, as you say, Westminster isn't committed to keeping Scotland at all?
    As a question of pure electoral self-interest you could argue that. But (a) unionism is pretty central to what the Tory party is all about; it's not something they will abandon lightly, either because they genuinely believe the principles they profess or because they calculate that doing so could make them look shifty and unprincipled and so contribute to a loss of support in England.

    And (b) the anti-Tory majority in Scotland isn't an immutable fact of history. Up to the 1960s the Tories often won a majority of Scottish seats. There was then a long swing to Labour which peaked in the 90s, with the Tories winning no Scottish seats at all in the UK general election of 1997 (though in fact they won 17.5% of the Scottish vote). But after that Labour started to lose out to the Scots Nationalists. The Nationalists, obviously, are the current flavour of the month, but Tories may feel - more in their hearts than in their heads, granted - that their day may yet come again.


  • Options
    #130
    Junkyard Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 10,117 ✭✭✭✭Junkyard Tom


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Westminster, and the UK political establishment generally, favours the Union

    Two seconds there.. You're widening the goalposts. Is there a Westminster and UK political Establishment now?

    Didn't you say that:
    Because, historically, their domination at Westminster is so great they don't need a separate English assembly. They can nearly always get Westminster to act as England wishes, or in England's best interests.

    Let's not pretend that there is a UK establishment. There's an English establishment which you understood calls the shots.


  • Options
    #131
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, not to pick nits, but it was you who introduced the question of what the major political parties did in relation to the Scottish independence referendum (campaigned against it) in contrast to what Parliament did (legislated to hold it). I'm just using "Westminster and the UK political establishment" as a perhaps not very apt term to signal that we're not talking just about the Parliament that sits in the Palace of Westminister, but the parties and the political establishment that dominates it. Perhaps I should have said "the Westerminster political establishment".

    It's the UK political establishment in the sense that it dominates the political institutions of the UK. It's an English political establishment in the sense that it itself is largely composed of English people and reflects the values and concerns of English voters.

    So, yeah, terminology can be confusing precisely because there's a systemic failure in the system to distinguish between England and the UK, and an implicit and frequently unacknowledged assumption that the UK is basically English.

    Remember after the Scottish independence referendum was narrowly defeated, there was much talk about further reform of UK political institutions (Devo-max)? And the question of whether there should be an English assembly (or a number of regional assemblies in England) came up. Why, people asked, should Scottish MPs have a voice at Westminster in relation to matters which, in Scotland, Wales and NI, are dealt with by the Scottish Parliament? On such matters the decisions of the Westminster Parliament affect only English people; why should Scottish, etc, MPs have a say?

    It's a reasonable question, and you might think the obvious answer is devolution for England, too, if the English don't want the Scots, etc, involved in their affairs. But the UK don't have English devolution; instead they are to have the "English Grand Committee" of the Westminster House of Commons. That'll be all the members of the House who sit for English constituencies, and it will deal with matters which affect only England.

    But that's more than 80% of the membership, which effectively means that while the English Grand Committee is dealing with English business, the House can't function to consider business of relevance to the entire UK. So this reflects an assumption that, yes, it is the proper business and the proper concern of the Westminister Parliament (and by implication other UK-wide political and governmental institutions) to devote their time, attention and resources to matters of relevance purely to England; to act, in effect, as English political institutions. Which is why I say that the English don't want their own institutions because they don't need them; UK institutions will act as English institutions to the extent English opinion requires, and the Westminster political establishment doesn't see anything wrong with this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,576 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, not to pick nits, but it was you who introduced the question of what the major political parties did in relation to the Scottish independence referendum (campaigned against it) in contrast to what Parliament did (legislated to hold it). I'm just using "Westminster and the UK political establishment" as a perhaps not very apt term to signal that we're not talking just about the Parliament that sits in the Palace of Westminister, but the parties and the political establishment that dominates it. Perhaps I should have said "the Westerminster political establishment".


    I don't think you can attach any significance to the fact that David Cameron allowed the two referendums to take place. Those were calculated gambles on his part, one which he won and the big one which he lost. You need to look at what he campaigned for to know what he wanted to happen.


  • Options
    #133
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Well, no, if he was absolutely committed to either of them not happening, he didn't have to allow either referendum to go ahead.

    I know he didn't want them to happen, but my claim was not about what Westminster wanted; it was about what Westminster was committed to.

    Cameron didn't want Brexit, but he won office by campaigning on a promise to hold a Brexit referendum, and to respect the result. It would defy common sense and the English language to say that he was committed to remaining in the EU; he clearly wasn't.


  • Options
    #134
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You're using the fact that there is a Tory government as a reason why NI, Scotland and Hull should go there own way. We've had six years of a Tory government (of which four were as part of a coalition) but prior to that, there was over a decade of Labour.

    Has the fortunes of those areas changed in the six years or were they this way for longer?

    I think they could look forward to better treatment under a Labour government.


  • Options
    #135
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I think they could look forward to better treatment under a Labour government.
    Hull may think so, but Scotland and NI plainly don't!


  • Options
    #136
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Hull may think so, but Scotland and NI plainly don't!

    Cards on the table here.
    In the case of NI those who want to see NI prosper, normalise and modernise 'would expect to fare better'-find a more attentive ear under a Labour gov. imo.
    Those who want the old system to remain would be more comfortable under Tories.


  • Options
    #137
    Patser
    Registered Users Posts: 7,928 ✭✭✭Patser


    The life of Brexit.


  • Options
    #138
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Do the people of Dublin give a **** about Letterkenny?

    In comparison? Off course there is more care.


  • Options
    #139
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Cards on the table here.
    In the case of NI those who want to see NI prosper, normalise and modernise 'would expect to fare better'-find a more attentive ear under a Labour gov. imo.
    Those who want the old system to remain would be more comfortable under Tories.
    You might very well think so. I might very well agree. But in NI they don't vote for the Labour party, or for parties aligned with the Labour party, in any very great numbers.


  • Options
    #140
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Last brext to Brooklyn.....or Brixton

    Every which way but brexit

    Battle of Brexit


  • Options
    #141
    Enzokk
    Registered Users Posts: 5,576 ✭✭✭Enzokk


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, no, if he was absolutely committed to either of them not happening, he didn't have to allow either referendum to go ahead.

    I know he didn't want them to happen, but my claim was not about what Westminster wanted; it was about what Westminster was committed to.

    Cameron didn't want Brexit, but he won office by campaigning on a promise to hold a Brexit referendum, and to respect the result. It would defy common sense and the English language to say that he was committed to remaining in the EU; he clearly wasn't.


    If politics was black and white I would agree with you. However it is not. He had to deal with a eurosceptic wing in his party and I don't think he thought he was going to win a majority at the election. I think he thought he was going to be in a coalition again where the coalition partner was going to reject the referendum and it would be out of his hands.

    If, as you say, he was committed to the leaving why did he quit? Surely he would have had everything he wanted as he would have silenced the voices of opposition in his own party and he would have been out of Europe as he wanted. Seems a little strange in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You might very well think so. I might very well agree. But in NI they don't vote for the Labour party, or for parties aligned with the Labour party, in any very great numbers.

    :) I didn't say they did.


  • Options
    #143
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,108 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Enzokk wrote: »
    If politics was black and white I would agree with you. However it is not. He had to deal with a eurosceptic wing in his party and I don't think he thought he was going to win a majority at the election. I think he thought he was going to be in a coalition again where the coalition partner was going to reject the referendum and it would be out of his hands.
    Well, I think at the very least we can say that he was more committed to the Tories winning a majority than he was to the UK remaning in the EU, since he was prepared to gamble the latter in order to acheive the former!
    Enzokk wrote: »
    If, as you say, he was committed to the leaving why did he quit? Surely he would have had everything he wanted as he would have silenced the voices of opposition in his own party and he would have been out of Europe as he wanted. Seems a little strange in my opinion.
    I didn't say he was committed to leaving. I said he wasn't committed to staying. His party was (and is) committed to leaving, since they won an election on a platform of respecting the result of the referendum. He resigned because he didn't want to pilot them through that. Although it's not what he wanted, they are saddled with that commitment as a result of decisions that he made.


  • Options
    #144
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Is it just a question at this stage of going through film titles or imdb lists and picking any film at random that has a word beginning with b in its title and substituting the word for 'Brexit' ?
    Or is it that these Brexit titles arent even meant to be funny and that is the joke, and Im just missing it ?


  • Options
    #145
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,045 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Is it just a question at this stage of going through film titles or imdb lists and picking any film at random that has a word beginning with b in its title and substituting the word for 'Brexit' ?
    Or is it that these Brexit titles arent even meant to be funny and that is the joke, and Im just missing it ?

    Grumpy Old Man? :)


  • Options
    #146
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Junkyard Tom wrote: »
    Why don't the English have their own devolved assembly Fred? Ye'd have a very prosperous state if you didn't have to subsidise Scotland and Wales nevermind the northeast of Ireland.

    Why is that?

    They do already though dont they? Isnt that the issue. There is an English parliament which also has power over a few quaint regions, that add a bit of national colour and are nice places to go on holiday? Like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Well, not Northern Ireland, but the other two are nice to have. Like a veranda, or decent potting shed at the end of the garden.


  • Options
    #147
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    The Financial Times reports that Hollande warns May about hard negotiations and Merkel adds that they will be rough times for the UK. The UK is negotiating with the biggest economy in the world. Do they think they'll set the terms?

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/7a9b4960-96c1-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582?client=ms-android-samsung


  • Options
    #148
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    They do already though dont they? Isnt that the issue. There is an English parliament which also has power over a few quaint regions, that add a bit of national colour and are nice places to go on holiday? Like Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Well, not Northern Ireland, but the other two are nice to have. Like a veranda, or decent potting shed at the end of the garden.

    Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating solely to England and Wales, such as extended opening hours.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14332588.Labour_and_SNP_unite_with_Tory_rebels_to_defeat_Government_over_Sunday_trading_plan/


  • Options
    #149
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating solely to England and Wales, such as extended opening hours.

    English MPs do too for England effectively. That Scottish or Welsh most toe the line on their decisions for England is only i cidental to them.


  • Options
    #150
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Scottish MPs can vote on matters relating solely to England and Wales, such as extended opening hours.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14332588.Labour_and_SNP_unite_with_Tory_rebels_to_defeat_Government_over_Sunday_trading_plan/

    And the grammar school debate. There's hints that the SNP may block it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    English MPs do too for England effectively. That Scottish or Welsh most toe the line on their decisions for England is only i cidental to them.

    The structure is different with Wales, but generally speaking, Scotland sets it's own laws.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement