Brexit discussion thread III

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Apparently the Irish Government told the British Government not to share the text with the DUP before going forward.

I realise that it comes from Foster, but if true that muddies the water somewhat. There are two questions:
1) Why did the Irish Government want to keep this from the DUP? Surely they could have foreseen this scenario.
2) Why did Theresa May & the British negotiating team accept that?

Now of course it could be cobblers but these are interesting questions if it is true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Apologies S. I posted this before I seen your post on the subject.

Right let's think logically shall we.

You're effectively saying that the Irish government told the UK government to withhold it from their coalition partners and they agreed? This says more about Arlene's connection with reality than any events of the past few days.

Larbre34

Isn't it pretty clear that the objective of both Governments was to keep the DUP behind the velvet rope for as long as possible, then drag them over it and bounce them into it? Admirable in one way and bloody stupid in another.

May shouldn't have been on the phone to Arlene right after this, she should have been on to Corbyn saying "listen, the point we are at now is that we are about to sign a deal that addresses most of your concerns, get me the votes to guide through all the brexit legislation and abstain on anything you dont like until March 19 and we'll bin the confidence and supply deal that holds us to ransom with the DUP"

kowtow

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is a bit controversial. Arelene Foster is telling the media that the British negotiating team told her the Irish government didn't want her to see the text on the border deal. This from the Guardian.

Now I don't thin Arlene's the most trustworthy source at the best of times, but this feels like someone's telling porkies. If it were true that Irish government asked the British negotiating team to withhold the border terms then that would mean that the British government are taking orders from the Irish government. How likely is that exactly?

It is acknowledged that the first tweet from RTE was from an outdated version of the text, divergence vs alignment.

It also, initially, missed the second part of the paragraph which qualified the rules as being only those which affected the GFA.

And - of course - it begun with the spin "UK concedes...." which is natural, if premature.

Am I the only one who thinks that having read only the first tweet, and the joyful re-tweeting of it, Arlene & Co might simply have gone off on one and appeared for an impromptu news conference? Without realizing that taken as a whole the text was exactly as it had been patiently described to them over recent weeks?

If that is the case, then all that is really needed is a period of calm and it might explain why May & Foster are not meeting today. There is no negotiation to be done, but some time must pass so that she can save face.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apologies S. I posted this before I seen your post on the subject.

Right let's think logically shall we.

You're effectively saying that the Irish government told the UK government to withhold it from their coalition partners and they agreed? This says more about Arlene's connection with reality than any events of the past few days.

Good evening!

No. I'm not saying anything. That's why I used the phrase "if it is true" and "if true" in my post.

It would be helpful if people stopped trying to read things that weren't said into my posts. It'd be nice to discuss the substance of the issues raised.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Bar_Prop

Watching Dodds on the UTV news now I cannot fail but conclude that the DUP intention is a hard border.

Odhinn

Blowfish wrote: »

Depends, if it gets portrayed by the other side as 'trying to weaken the union', then who knows.

No, I'd say the real danger is a hard border. Armed men and checkpoints would be a potential time bomb.

steddyeddy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Enda (remember Enda? ) sticking his oar in. I thought both Leo and Simon were remarkably reserved in their remarks. Mind you I see the usual media heads out (Olivia O'Leary etc) giving out about an Irish person having the temerity to mention they would like to see a UI.

Actually as an Irishman living in the UK I am delighted with the fortitude, intelligence and pragmatism with which the Irish negotiating team are representing us. Of all the belligerents of Brexit they are the only ones putting forward cogent arguments and fighting for the well being of their own citizens.

lawred2

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Neither of them have the least influence over the DUP, in fact, the reverse.

The reverse?

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

No. I'm not saying anything. That's why I used the phrase "if it is true" and "if true" in my post.

It would be helpful if people stopped trying to read things that weren't said into my posts. It'd be nice to discuss the substance of the issues raised.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ha ha sorry. I thought you were being serious about it. No S, Arlene's not one to be taken seriously.

Leroy42

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

No. I'm not saying anything. That's why I used the phrase "if it is true" and "if true" in my post.

It would be helpful if people stopped trying to read things that weren't said into my posts. It'd be nice to discuss the substance of the issues raised.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So you spent yesterday claiming that the Irish were at least partially to blame and then today you put up 'if it true' proof that the Irish were duplicitous during the affair.

What is hidden between the lines there?

steddyeddy

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you spent yesterday claiming that the Irish were at least partially to blame and then today you put up 'if it true' proof that the Irish were duplicitous during the affair.

What is hidden between the lines there?

A lack of understanding maybe?

lawred2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Apparently the Irish Government told the British Government not to share the text with the DUP before going forward.

I realise that it comes from Foster, but if true that muddies the water somewhat. There are two questions:
1) Why did the Irish Government want to keep this from the DUP? Surely they could have foreseen this scenario.
2) Why did Theresa May & the British negotiating team accept that?

Now of course it could be cobblers but these are interesting questions if it is true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Engaging even the most primitive of critical faculties would direct someone to conclude that that is utter bullcrap.

munsterlegend

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you spent yesterday claiming that the Irish were at least partially to blame and then today you put up 'if it true' proof that the Irish were duplicitous during the affair.

What is hidden between the lines there?

I wouldn't waste my time. The Uk govt are to blame here. It's clear to everyone how completely incompetent they are. As for foster she would blame Dublin for the rain up north if she felt she could get away with. It's the only policy they have which is why the northern economy is the joke it is.

blanch152

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So Arlene foster is saying she wasn't shown the text of the brexit deal in advance of Teresa May talks with the EU. My question is on what basis should she or any of the DUP have been shown it ? She is not first minister of NI and her party are not in coalition with the Conservative party in Britain. They are in a supply and confidence agreement with them. Also they have the same right as any of the other parties in NI.

Varadkar showed it to Martin, so we can hardly make a fuss about that.

Bar_Prop

lawred2 wrote: »

The reverse?

The DUP will almost by rote take a contrarian position to anything promoted by Dublin or Brussels.

FrancieBrady

munsterlegend wrote: »

I wouldn't waste my time. The Uk govt are to blame here. It's clear to everyone how completely incompetent they are. As for foster she would blame Dublin for the rain up north if she felt she could get away with. It's the only policy they have which is why the northern economy is the joke it is.

If she is lying here I hope Leo or Simon put her firmly back in her box.

Her rhetoric is highly dangerous.

lawred2

kowtow wrote: »

I don't mean it to sound that way - I agree with you. I wasn't in the UK at the time but if I recall it was a manifesto commitment by Labour to hold a referendum on Lisbon, which was broken when the EU - I think partly in response to democratic unrest in various nations - managed to slice and dice Lisbon enough to allow it to slip past the hurdle set by Labour in their manifesto.

I'm not suggesting that the EU set out to do this unilaterally, or even with the UK in mind, - it's simply a fact of life. Slice by slice sovereignty has been eroded during the UK membership of the EU and there has never - until now - been a referendum. It's interesting to speculate whether, had one been held in 2008 or earlier, the Brexit result might have been different (although I dare say a referendum on Brexit might not have been required at all).

But it is simply not true to say that British Sovereignty has not been diminished in favour of the EU, because it has.

Anything that was 'ceded' was done so willingly and via the sovereign democratic mechanisms as exist in Westminster.

blanch152

BoatMad wrote: »

My concern is that a new form of words will be agreed with the EU that will be a watered down version , the EU will go ahead with phase 2 , and ireland will come under pressure to agreed and we will be left with very little in reality

Yup, I expect the same.

A watered down version, limited to existing areas of North-South co-operation operating purely under the GFA, with the Northern Assembly having a veto or needing to approve any future co-oepration or EU Regulations, after all it is under the North-South co-operation, not the East-West one.

Either that, or a further watered-down version that covers all of the UK.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, I expect the same.

A watered down version, limited to existing areas of North-South co-operation operating purely under the GFA, with the Northern Assembly having a veto or needing to approve any future co-oepration or EU Regulations, after all it is under the North-South co-operation, not the East-West one.

Either that, or a further watered-down version that covers all of the UK.

Does the border negatively affect any cross border co-operation? I don't think you have the first clue about the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of the agreement.

solodeogloria

blanch152 wrote: »

Yup, I expect the same.

A watered down version, limited to existing areas of North-South co-operation operating purely under the GFA, with the Northern Assembly having a veto or needing to approve any future co-oepration or EU Regulations, after all it is under the North-South co-operation, not the East-West one.

Either that, or a further watered-down version that covers all of the UK.

Good evening!

Another interesting thing emerged in the urgent questions in the Commons.

Davis said that the regulatory alignment was intended to be for the whole of the UK. I suspect the UK used that wording so it didn't oblige it to be a member of the SM or CU but simply to mirror rules in particular sectors. This isn't ideal. I would have been keen on much more control but if it doesn't mean the UK joining the customs union and single market formally it could work as the UK could regain control of immigration and have scope for FTAs on a more limited basis.

It's also interesting that the appetite amongst the EU27 is waning on taking away Euro derivatives clearing from London with a number of regulators saying they feel hosting central counterparties for OTC derivatives is too risky in their member states.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

blanch152

steddyeddy wrote: »

Does the border negatively affect any cross border co-operation? I don't think you have the first clue about the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of the agreement.

The spirit of the agreement has nothing to do with legal discussions.

Call me Al

Bar_Prop wrote: »

Watching Dodds on the UTV news now I cannot fail but conclude that the DUP intention is a hard border.

Bar prop.. if that crowd could pick up their 6 counties and move them lock stock and barrel up into the sea beside the north pole to get away from us "papists" they'd do so. It must galling in the extreme to them right now to have the indifference from Westminster towards them and their belief system laid bare for all the world to see.

I don't believe a word of Arlene's recent assertions. She's in damage limitation mode. It's everyone else's fault.

Water John

No way should the Irish side engage in any tit for tat replying to Foster. She's UK's problem and wouldn't dignify the nonsense they are spouting with a reply.

tomwaterford

steddyeddy wrote: »

Does the border negatively affect any cross border co-operation? I don't think you have the first clue about the Good Friday agreement and the spirit of the agreement.

Be brilliant if this collapsed the British government:D:D. .... (also a possibilty of DUP being forever sidelined by a tory/labour party type coalition)

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

The spirit of the agreement has nothing to do with legal discussions.

One of the legalities of the GFA is cross border co-operation. Do you think the reintroduction of a hard border will negatively or positively affect that?

Are you only concerned with the letter of the law in the GFA, which was made purposely ambiguous by the way or are you concerned about the affect a hard border might have on peace?

4068ac1elhodqr

Tomorrow's potential newspaper headlines:

a. "Come on Eileen"
b. The 'Conservative Cluster____ Continues'
c. You've been 'Dup'ed' (again)
d. Countdown to Corbyn
e. Fostering Isolation on the Island

Water John

funny watching Tommy Gorman interview her, and all his body language and voice says, 'I don't believe you', when she says the Irish Govn't insisted that the UK did not show the DUP, the wording.

munsterlegend

Dario Melted Sunlamp wrote: »

Tomorrow's potential newspaper headlines:

a. "Come on Eileen"
b. The 'Conservative Cluster____ Continues'
c. You've been 'Dup'ed' (again)
d. Countdown to Corbyn
e. Fostering Isolation on the Island

May'hem. She has just been one disaster after another since she took over. On a human level you'd almost feel sorry for her but she is a Tory prime minister so no!

pc7

Genuine question, is Arlene touched? To come with her latest statement about the Irish government is bonkers. It can’t possibly be true (can it?) stating it just makes her like some crazy cat lady in a vox pop.

4068ac1elhodqr

tomwaterford wrote: »

Be brilliant if this collapsed the British government:D:D. .... (also a possibilty of DUP being forever sidelined by a tory/labour party type coalition)

That holds strong potential for an early bet for 2018, 5 is a bit low for JC to be the saviour, will wait for live election event and double digit returns.



(By the way, I also cleaned up on Trump and Brexit also :pac:).

Beechwoodspark

So another day has passed and more time wasting and chaos in London.

The clock is ticking and it looks (if we are to take the DUP at their word) as if agreement to get to phase 2 will not happen.

It's going to be a sad old Christmas for Teresa and co.

munsterlegend

Water John wrote: »

funny watching Tommy Gorman interview her, and all his body language and voice says, 'I don't believe you', when she says the Irish Govn't insisted that the UK did not show the DUP, the wording.

Foster was even dubious of it herself saying that's what we were told! Only one side telling lies here and it isn't the irish govt.

4068ac1elhodqr

munsterlegend wrote: »

May'hem. She has just been one disaster after another since she took over. On a human level you'd almost feel sorry for her but she is a Tory prime minister so no!

The conservatives have cluster____d the last 5yrs.

Broken apart Europe (just wait for Italy signal leaving next summer). They lost their clear majority (and £2bn). Now Scotland, Wales and even London want out of the UK :pac:

Itssoeasy

Arlene foster would want to have proof of her claim of the UK government telling them the Irish government blocked them from seeing the draft. That's a big claim to make. This could go badly for her and the DUP.

LeinsterDub

solodeogloria wrote: »

. This isn't ideal. I would have been keen on much more control but if it doesn't mean the UK joining the customs union and single market formally it could work as the UK could regain control of immigration and have scope for FTAs on a more limited basis.

So control isn't been taken back? In fact control is being lost with no seat at the table. Honestly what is left? Why doesn't the UK just stay in the EU but pull a Sinn Féin and refuse to attend it's institutions. Same basic outcome, cheaper and if the UK ever comes to its senses much easier to undo?

Beechwoodspark

Water John wrote: »

No way should the Irish side engage in any tit for tat replying to Foster. She's UK's problem and wouldn't dignify the nonsense they are spouting with a reply.

Dead right.

ROI graciously assented to a solution to the Brexiteers border puzzle.

The UK then completely messed around both the EU and ROI.

Absolutely ridiculous and farcical behaviour by May and her sometime allies in the dup.

The deal is there to be signed off on if the UK can get its act together -and I very much doubt that. Let them at it.

FrancieBrady

I have no doubt that Dublin may have asked that 'No Party' (as opposed to the 'No' Party ) got to see the document. Which makes sense. The DUP no more deserved to see than SF.
Can you imagine the moaning if Leo was liasing with SF on it!

tomwaterford

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no doubt that Dublin may have asked that 'No Party' (as opposed to the 'No' Party ) got to see the document. Which makes sense. The DUP no more deserved to see than SF.
Can you imagine the moaning if Leo was liasing with SF on it!

Tbf the dup are part of a coalition....begs the question of what's the point....if they are continuesly being excluded through?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's also interesting that the appetite amongst the EU27 is waning on taking away Euro derivatives clearing from London with a number of regulators saying they feel hosting central counterparties for OTC derivatives is too risky in their member states.

I find this quote interesting in your link about the clearing houses.

Then, there are the pragmatists. In a speech in Frankfurt on Wednesday, Andreas Dombret, member of the executive board of the Bundesbank, set out a path to “obviate the need for a large-scale relocation of clearing business, at least from an economic standpoint.” The alternative would rely on “intensive cooperation between U.K. and EU supervisory authorities,” and would also have to include “far-reaching powers of information and intervention” for EU supervision relating to U.K. CCPs, he said.

Would you accept that the EU supervising authorities have far reaching powers of UK clearing houses if it is kept in the UK?

steddyeddy

pc7 wrote: »

Genuine question, is Arlene touched? To come with her latest statement about the Irish government is bonkers. It can’t possibly be true (can it?) stating it just makes her like some crazy cat lady in a vox pop.

Some members of the DUP believe that Earth is 5000 thousand years old. They are not to be taken seriously.

FrancieBrady

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf the dup are part of a coalition....begs the question of what's the point....if they are continuesly being excluded through?

Then that was Theresa's call.
A request from Dublin that no party see it was a fair enough call.

Ewan Hoosarmi

I've just watcher that Foster interview on the news. My gut feeling is that she was told, by the British team, that the Irish team told them to keep the text of the agreement from her. Judging by her body language and her choice of words, she no more believes that than she believes in Santa Claus.

So, does she now feel angry about being lied to by the British? Or would she forgive them any wrongdoing? Interesting times.

Beechwoodspark

steddyeddy wrote: »

Some members of the DUP believe that Earth is 5000 thousand years old. They are not to be taken seriously.

Judging by her cash for ash alleged behaviour she certainly isn't "all there" in the head.

Itssoeasy

tomwaterford wrote: »

Tbf the dup are part of a coalition....begs the question of what's the point....if they are continuesly being excluded through?

The DUP aren't in coalition tom. They are in a supply and confidence agreement. The lib dems and the conservstives was a coalition government this deal the DUP have isn't a coalition.

swampgas

Water John wrote: »

funny watching Tommy Gorman interview her, and all his body language and voice says, 'I don't believe you', when she says the Irish Govn't insisted that the UK did not show the DUP, the wording.

If the UK team kept it from the DUP, then tried to cover for themselves by hinting that it was because Ireland was nervous about it ... well that's the kind of lie that grows legs and runs away from you. Even if Ireland was nervous about sharing it with the DUP, the British should never have let the DUP know that.

They really are amateurs. And these are supposed to be the people who will negotiate wonderful new trade deals? The mind boggles.

steddyeddy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The DUP aren't in coalition tom. They are in a supply and confidence agreement. The lib dems and the conservstives was a coalition government this deal the DUP have isn't a coalition.

But they still decide the fate of the UK. I don't remember the Lib Dems having this much power.

tomwaterford

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The DUP aren't in coalition tom. They are in a supply and confidence agreement. The lib dems and the conservstives was a coalition government this deal the DUP have isn't a coalition.

Oh....I was of opioions it was :pac:



@FrancieBrady: noone is going to sign off until they see something......however I really hope all this collapses Westminster

steddyeddy

swampgas wrote: »

If the UK team kept it from the DUP, then tried to cover for themselves by hinting that it was because Ireland was nervous about it ... well that's the kind of lie that grows legs and runs away from you. Even if Ireland was nervous about sharing it with the DUP, the British should never have let the DUP know that.

They really are amateurs. And these are supposed to be the people who will negotiate wonderful new trade deals? The mind boggles.

Let's say it was true. Then as you say, the UK government told that to the DUP..... I mean that's all levels of stupidity. I'm looking forward to hearing the UK's response to this.

Phonehead

Enzokk wrote: »

I find this quote interesting in your link about the clearing houses.




Would you accept that the EU supervising authorities have far reaching powers of UK clearing houses if it is kept in the UK?

Exactly, that's pretty much what I don't understand about Brexit supporters using articles like this to support their view that they hold all the cards, you only hold the cards if you cede power to the EU. Once again we are back to being beholden to the EU authorities but not involved in the decision making, surely this is a huge loss from where you currently are.

FrancieBrady

steddyeddy wrote: »

But they still decide the fate of the UK. I don't remember the Lib Dems having this much power.

Yeh, but are we not seeing one of the most pathetic and desparate clings to power we have ever seen?

Most PM's would have thrown the towel in by now and one so fabulously embarrassed as she was yesterday would have be gone before supper last night.