Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

hill16bhoy

Leroy42 wrote: »

You can sympathise with the DUP or unionist position but the reality is that Brexit, at it's very core, is about changing the status quo. For NI that means that have to accept that the open borders are no longer viable.

The question they needed to ask themselves was whether their sense of unionism should come before the democratic wish of the voters. They, and I do not blame them for this, opted to put unionism at the top.

But that very adherence to unionism means I have little sympathy should their accepted leaders decide that the best course for the union is to diverge NI away from it. It is, after all, the very core of their belief that London should be in charge.

Would I be mad if it was me, you betcha. But such is the deal they signed. This is the price you pay.

That "changing of the status quo" was extremely nebulous.

It was in fact sold as "changing the status quo" while simultaneously keeping everything everybody liked about EU membership.

That was the Leave campaign's evil genius, to be all things to all people.

It was never, ever sold as putting up trading barriers between NI and Britain, moving a united Ireland closer by stealth, or putting up a hard border in Ireland.

It was all a massive lie.

Laughing at those who were hoodwinked and now clearly realise they were hoodwinked isn't particularly helpful.

Leroy42

hill16bhoy wrote: »

They should have, yes.

But if they had they'd still be in the exact same position as they're in now.

NI's votes did not make the difference in the referendum.

If they had campaigned for Remain, and highlighted the very real issue of the Irish border and the obvious choice the UK would be faced with, then I am pretty confident many on GB would have voted to remain or at the very least demanded a solution from the likes of Johnson and Farage.

They choose to try to play games and may yet have to pay a price for that. They either weren't aware, incompetent, or deceitful. Hard to have sympathy for either.

CelticRambler

hill16bhoy wrote: »

What I do respect is their right to their British identity and their opposition to an NI backstop on that basis, as I do with all unionists who oppose it.

In what way does the backstop/Irish Sea border change weaken their (right to a) British identity? See Gibraltar example from earlier. I identify as Irish and we're known amongst our French entourage as an Irish family, even if I haven't lived permanently in the country for more than twenty years. The fact that I have to show my passport when arriving in Dublin doesn't change that one iota. As has been pointed out numerous times, in reality, the DUP do not want to be truly British - only when it suits their own isolationist agenda.

[If you're not going to accept the result of two recent elections as a valid expression of Corsican sentiment, I think we can leave that off-topic discussion for another time and place]

BonnieSituation

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, where have I said anything about tolerating the DUP's bigotry?

I said nothing of the sort, and I do think they're a crowd of hateful, bigoted wee shltes, to use Northern terminology.

What I do respect is their right to their British identity and their opposition to an NI backstop on that basis, as I do with all unionists who oppose it.

Respecting Irish/British/both identities is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement.

You keep jumping the gun and exclaiming how an NI-only Backstop doesn't respect the rights of unionists to protection or indeed projection of their British identity, but it's only been the DUP and their ilk that have had the collective meltdown wrt the backstop.

The common-or-garden (fête) unionist is pro-backstop, anti-hard border and not worried about cultural dilution.

Can you explain how it does to the less able like myself?

I mean that Sylvia Hermon can manage to get onboard should give you pause for thought.

I watched to the guillotined debates on NI last night and the rank hypocrisy coming from the DUP was pathetic. To continue along this bizarre Ahern-esque path might seem to be a crusade for balance to you, but it ignores that the DUP represent but a small subsection of a small subsection of the North.

CelticRambler

hill16bhoy wrote: »

But if they had they'd still be in the exact same position as they're in now.

NI's votes did not make the difference in the referendum.

What about the DUP's funny-money funded campaign on "the mainland"? Did that make a difference? Do you think their right to identify as British also gave them the right to campaign in an entirely different jurisdiction?

Kermit.de.frog

DUP saying Johnson confirmed he is not advocating a Northern Ireland only backstop in their meeting. (This is Boris Johnson though and that means he is).

DUP also said they want a deal that's "good for all of the UK and Ireland" - they might be entertaining some notion that we might be prepared to dilute our place in the EU single market to help them out.

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

DUP saying Johnson confirmed he is not advocating a Northern Ireland only backstop in their meeting. (This is Boris Johnson though and that means he is).

DUP also said they want a deal that's "good for all of the UK and Ireland" - they might be entertaining some notion that we might be prepared to dilute our place in the EU single market to help them out.

Probably about time we weren't so intransigent.

20silkcut

hill16bhoy wrote: »

They should have, yes.

But if they had they'd still be in the exact same position as they're in now.

NI's votes did not make the difference in the referendum.

I know it would be the flip flop of all flip flops but the best way of protecting their cherished union and staying in the UK single market and indeed aligning with their kin folk in Scotland is to back remain. Their ten seats would add value to the remain bloc. Whilst the Tory’s , Cummings, ERG couldn’t care if they fell into the sea.

Leroy42

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Laughing at those who were hoodwinked and now clearly realise they were hoodwinked isn't particularly helpful.

I'm not laughing at them, but I fully understand those that feel a certain amount of schadenfreude.

Whilst they didn't create this mess, they certainly played their part and one mustn't forget that they used money to place Brexit adds in London Newspapers (or it was funneled though them).

They could have stood up for NI and stated that Brexit was a bad idea. You say they were lied to, these are politicians! This is actually their job to understand the possibilities of decisions and debate the best course of action.

The Irish government tried to warn about the border, heck even TM herself stated that it would cause a problem. You seem to be giving them a free pass on anything and that it is now unfair what is potentially going to happen.

Unfair to those in NI sure, but not the DUP. They happily went into government with a party that had just stated that they would deliver Brexit, and that was always going to lead to issues. If they didn't foresee that they they have no right to be in politics

fash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

For all their bigotry I don't believe the DUP have ever campaigned for a hard border in Ireland either during this process.

They campaigned on what the Brexiteers in England did - unicorns and visions of sunlit uplands - ie. to keep all of the benefits of EU membership and dispense with all responsibilities - a massive free lunch in other words.

Northern Ireland's votes did not make the difference in the referendum however, and even had the DUP campaigned for remain, they'd still be in the same position they are in now.

I don't see stupidity as a crime and I don't see it as worthy of punishment by the imposition of something nobody really wants either.

Actually they have both continued to refuse a soft brexit even as late during the summer and supported no deal. So yes indeed they have intentionally sought to establish a border.
As for their and the brexiters campaign, they knew exactly what they were looking for - to establish barriers between the EU and GB (while hoping it would apply to NI).
I see maliciousness from those opposed to the GFA- not stupidity. Even if it were stupidity on the part of some, it is better that the stupid face the consequences of their stupidity- not the rest of us- otherwise we have a moral hazard.

Between NI and the DUP dark funds fueled campaign in GB, who is to say what the effects of the DUP.
Furthermore, even if there was "nothing they could do" prior to the referendum, they could have pushed for a soft brexit which would resolve everything (and let's not forget that as late as 2014, the DUP were enthusiastic EU supporters)- however they intentionally refused to do so. Their plan at all stages has been to destroy the GFA, return violence to NI in order to breed extremism and force a border between NI and the Republic.

Enzokk

schmittel wrote: »

In fairness, Labour are making it easy for the Tories and press to exploit the confusion. This Emily Thornberry - Shadow Foreign Secretary:

No doubt that the initial communications from Thornberry was clumsy, but this was Question Time after all with its pantomime crowd and guests where I think it isn't easy to get your message across. But she should have been clear on what the policy is I agree.

For me at least it is clear what the policy is and you hope that it will become easier to relate it to the voters when the election comes around.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

DUP saying Johnson confirmed he is not advocating a Northern Ireland only backstop in their meeting. (This is Boris Johnson though and that means he is).

DUP also said they want a deal that's "good for all of the UK and Ireland" - they might be entertaining some notion that we might be prepared to dilute our place in the EU single market to help them out.

How many corners is he going to paint himself into. Either Cummings really is playing chess while we are throwing rocks around or this is all just one big mess up from him and Johnson. I guess we will find out tomorrow already when the initial deadline will approach to release the documents. Obviously with parliament prorogued this will not happen so the battle lines will start to be drawn already.

A Shropshire Lad

Northern Ireland is a unique place. Most of its politicians are fanatics in one repsect or another. Everything is about identity, and symbolism. The symbolism of putting any sort of border down the Irish Sea would be seen as just another attempt to erode their place in the Union.

Its ironic actually thats its the Conservative and Unionist party that brought about Brexit. Scotland is inching closer to Independence every day that Brexit drags on

joe40

hill16bhoy wrote: »

That "changing of the status quo" was extremely nebulous.

It was in fact sold as "changing the status quo" while simultaneously keeping everything everybody liked about EU membership.

That was the Leave campaign's evil genius, to be all things to all people.

It was never, ever sold as putting up trading barriers between NI and Britain, moving a united Ireland closer by stealth, or putting up a hard border in Ireland.

It was all a massive lie.

Laughing at those who were hoodwinked and now clearly realise they were hoodwinked isn't particularly helpful.

Sorry but I don't buy that. I can see how the average English voter may not have understood the complexity of Northern Ireland but not the DUP.
The DUP and unionist were fully aware of the gfa and how integral EU membership was to that treaty.
For them brexit was a deliberate attempt to undermine the gfa, bit rich to claim they were hoodwinked.
They made a very informed choice

Mr.Nice Guy

Listening to BBC NI's Talkback programme today as the DUP's Sammy Wilson discusses the possiblity of a hard border with Professor Deirdre Heenan of Ulster University. He concludes it's all a 'scam'. Here's a transcript from about 47 mins in.

Prof. Heenan: "The reality is Sammy, nowhere in the world, nowhere, are there two countries joined by a border in different regulatory regimes without checks at the border. It does not exist. And that is why people are genuinely worried."

Sammy Wilson: "Look, there are goods from China that come into the Irish Republic in containers every week. Is every container checked, although there's regulatory differences between the EU and China? Is every container checked?"

Prof. Heenan: "That's not surely your answer for the border, that not everything's checked? Because it says 'butter' on the outside of the lorry doesn't mean there's butter in the lorry. Of course there's going to have to be checks. The reality is once you check one thing you have to check everything."

Sammy Wilson: "And equally, because it says 'telephones' on the outside of the container from China doesn't mean there's telephones in it but they don't check everything. What they do is they use intelligence-led information, they can do checks once containers are opened and the goods go to shops through trading standards, regulations, and using trading standards offices. There's a lot of ways in which goods once they get into the EU are checked, and there's sanctions can be imposed to make sure people don't try to break the rules.

"The Irish government is going to do this anyway. They're saying that in the event of a No Deal it will be possible for them to check goods which cross the border, and to collect taxes on goods that cross the border, therefore, my argument is, this hard border thing is just a nonsense. It's a bit of a scam!"

Hard to believe that's the DUP's Brexit Spokesperson right there. Wilson also said he was "relaxed" that Johnson wouldn't move towards an NI-only backstop based on their meetings with him. Ulster Unionists' Reg Empey made a good point that the DUP invited both Boris and Rees-Mogg over to Belfast, gave them big receptions, listened as they said they wouldn't support the backstop, and then both went on to support May's Deal in the vote.

jm08

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, where have I said anything about tolerating the DUP's bigotry?

I said nothing of the sort, and I do think they're a crowd of hateful, bigoted wee shltes, to use Northern terminology.

What I do respect is their right to their British identity and their opposition to an NI backstop on that basis, as I do with all unionists who oppose it.

Respecting Irish/British/both identities is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement.

If its the cornerstone of the GFA, then the DUP are very happy to ignore it. Any support they have for the GFA is reluctant. Since Arlene became boss, they have done everything they can to wreck the whole peace process.

BonnieSituation

CelticRambler wrote: »

What about the DUP's funny-money funded campaign on "the mainland"? Did that make a difference? Do you think their right to identify as British also gave them the right to campaign in an entirely different jurisdiction?

Leroy42 wrote: »

I'm not laughing at them, but I fully understand those that feel a certain amount of schadenfreude.

Whilst they didn't create this mess, they certainly played their part and one mustn't forget that they used money to place Brexit adds in London Newspapers (or it was funneled though them).

They could have stood up for NI and stated that Brexit was a bad idea. You say they were lied to, these are politicians! This is actually their job to understand the possibilities of decisions and debate the best course of action.

The Irish government tried to warn about the border, heck even TM herself stated that it would cause a problem. You seem to be giving them a free pass on anything and that it is now unfair what is potentially going to happen.

Unfair to those in NI sure, but not the DUP. They happily went into government with a party that had just stated that they would deliver Brexit, and that was always going to lead to issues. If they didn't foresee that they they have no right to be in politics

It was very interesting, and I wouldn't be surprised if I was the only one who saw it with all that went on yesterday, but there was a question from Nigel Dodds to the SSNI about aligning the North with GB when it comes to political party funding and getting foreign donations banned.

Now on the face of it it looks like a sensible idea but it struck me as a "why ask now?"

Has the DUP's foreign funding now dried up and as such they are concerned about the funding differential between them and SF (who raise a heap of cash in the States)?

Or is there some truth in the weird funding they received for those Brexit ads and as such, they need to start hiding it by banning it now?

Just thought it was a very odd question considering the HIA debate wasn't moved and should have been top of the agenda along with Stormont reopening.

hill16bhoy

CelticRambler wrote: »

In what way does the backstop/Irish Sea border change weaken their (right to a) British identity? See Gibraltar example from earlier. I identify as Irish and we're known amongst our French entourage as an Irish family, even if I haven't lived permanently in the country for more than twenty years. The fact that I have to show my passport when arriving in Dublin doesn't change that one iota. As has been pointed out numerous times, in reality, the DUP do not want to be truly British - only when it suits their own isolationist agenda.

[If you're not going to accept the result of two recent elections as a valid expression of Corsican sentiment, I think we can leave that off-topic discussion for another time and place]

They feel it does, and that's all that matters - so it does matter. They feel they're being chucked under the bus by the rest of UK, that their status is being changed without their consent. That's an entirely fair point of view.

It's not for me or you to tell people with a British identity in NI how that identity or their right to a British identity is being affected.

Others so inclined could ask, how would a hard border weaken people in NI's right to an Irish identity? As they'd still have the right to an Irish passport and all that - devil's advocate argument.

The answer is, those who have an Irish identity in NI pretty much universally feel it would weaken their right to one - I'd certainly feel that way too - and that's all there is to it, really.

Everything you say about the DUP "not wanting to be truly British" could equally be aimed at any party in NI, Scotland or Wales.

What is "truly British", anyway?

The UK is a nation state made up of constituent parts in which three of those parts voted for autonomy over certain areas.

Erecting a hard border in the sea between NI and Britain was never voted on.

I absolutely accept votes for Corsican separatist parties as a valid expression of pro-Corsican independence sentiment - but that's not what I was asking for - I asked for a poll which showed the majority of Corsicans are in favour of independence, or in favour of erecting barriers to trading with France.

I haven't seen any such poll.

Strazdas

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Northern Ireland is a unique place. Most of its politicians are fanatics in one repsect or another. Everything is about identity, and symbolism. The symbolism of putting any sort of border down the Irish Sea would be seen as just another attempt to erode their place in the Union.

Its ironic actually thats its the Conservative and Unionist party that brought about Brexit. Scotland is inching closer to Independence every day that Brexit drags on

Strangely though, England seems to be going the same way. Brexit has become tribal, you're either for it or against it and those for it are bordering on the fanatical at this stage.

kowloon

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Has the DUP's foreign funding now dried up and as such they are concerned about the funding differential between them and SF (who raise a heap of cash in the States)?

They also have that unexpected £1.5M willed to them by an ex mechanic in England. Every little helps.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-johnson-considering-building-bridge-between-scotland-and-northern-ireland

Boris still looking at the bridge to NI idea.

Even if this wasn't total fantasy, border checks would still be need at the bridge!

fash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

They feel it does, and that's all that matters - so it does matter. They feel they're being chucked under the bus by the rest of UK, that their status is being changed without their consent. That's an entirely fair point of view.

It's not for me or you to tell people with a British identity in NI how that identity or their right to a British identity is being affected.

Others so inclined could ask, how would a hard border weaken people in NI's right to an Irish identity? As they'd still have the right to an Irish passport and all that - devil's advocate argument.

The answer is, those who have an Irish identity in NI pretty much universally feel it would weaken their right to one - I'd certainly feel that way too - and that's all there is to it, really.

Everything you say about the DUP "not wanting to be truly British" could equally be aimed at any party in NI, Scotland or Wales.

What is "truly British", anyway?

The UK is a nation state made up of constituent parts in which three of those parts voted for autonomy over certain areas.

Erecting a hard border in the sea between NI and Britain was never voted on.

I absolutely accept votes for Corsican separatist parties as a valid expression of pro-Corsican independence sentiment - but that's not what I was asking for - I asked for a poll which showed the majority of Corsicans are in favour of independence, or in favour of erecting barriers to trading with France.

I haven't seen any such poll.

What is a land border?
It is a massive imposition on a mostly Catholic population who voted against the change in status likely reducing crossing points from 300 to 100, cutting off people from their nearest town, their nearest hospital, ultimately enforced on a resentful population by a foreign military who in the past have murdered members of that population creating massive headaches and costs for agriculture etc. - A massive endeavour that costs a fortune.

What is a sea border?
A few enhanced checks in locations where checks already take place undertaken by state agents regarded as being kin to the local population.

Who caused this mess? The DUP. Had they demanded a soft brexit, a soft brexit is where we would now be. They have sought to end the GFA and campaigned to change the delicate status quo despite and in fact because of the warnings. Let them reap the whirlwind.
(And being old testament types, in the end, they will appreciate that).

Leroy42

hill16bhoy wrote: »

They feel it does, and that's all that matters - so it does matter. They feel they're being chucked under the bus by the rest of UK, that their status is being changed without their consent. That's an entirely fair point of view.

That is the price for given their over to the Tory party.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Erecting a hard border in the sea between NI and Britain was never voted on.

It really was. Ireland tried to warn them, Blair, the EU. There was plenty of people trying to warn the UK but they opted to dismiss it as project fear. But it was clear to everyone that it was going to cause an issue.

Dyr

Anyone putting forward the argument that a NI backstop as a breach of the GFA needs to go back to the original British NI only backstop proposal and highlight what section of the GFA agreement its breaching. Best of luck with that

If we're on about some sort of breach of the spirit of the GFA then get out of town. The DUP and their voters have opposed the GFA since it was first entered into and have done their best to undermine it ever since. That dog won't hunt.

hill16bhoy

fash wrote: »

What is a land border?
It is a massive imposition on a mostly Catholic population who voted against the change in status likely reducing crossing points from 300 to 100, cutting off people from their nearest town, their nearest hospital, ultimately enforced on a resentful population by a foreign military who in the past have murdered members of that population creating massive headaches and costs for agriculture etc. - A massive endeavour that costs a fortune.

What is a sea border?
A few enhanced checks in locations where checks already take place undertaken by state agents regarded as being kin to the local population.

Who caused this mess? The DUP. Had they demanded a soft brexit, a soft brexit is where we would now be. They have sought to end the GFA and campaigned to change the delicate status quo despite and in fact because of the warnings. Let them reap the whirlwind.
(And being old testament types, in the end, they will appreciate that).

You're completely proving my points here.

Total dismissal of any unionist concerns, and schadenfreude at the DUP.

That is nothing more than the other side of the DUP's own coin.

That sort of divisive rhetoric isn't going to do any good for anybody.

sdanseo

However unlikely. Just imagine the reactions in the UK if in a number of years a United Ireland and a newly built bridge paid for entirely by Her Majesty's government both came about as accidental consequences to bumbling Boris incompetence.

They'd lynch him. It would be the subject of ridicule for centuries.

Tell me how

Strazdas wrote: »

Strangely though, England seems to be going the same way. Brexit has become tribal, you're either for it or against it and those for it are bordering on the fanatical at this stage.

It's been that way for 3 years. You are correct though.
If there was a referendum tomorrow, the max the winning side would get would be 55% in my opinion. It's incredibly divisive and will continue to be because it is so interlinked with the economy and a sense of governance.

A Shropshire Lad

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.channel4.com/news/exclusive-johnson-considering-building-bridge-between-scotland-and-northern-ireland

Boris still looking at the bridge to NI idea.

Even if this wasn't total fantasy, border checks would still be need at the bridge!

I think its very sporting of Boris to want to build a bridge between two countries that will be independent of Britain in a few years.

Akrasia

sdanseo wrote: »

However unlikely. Just imagine the reactions in the UK if in a number of years a United Ireland and a newly built bridge paid for entirely by Her Majesty's government both came about as accidental consequences to bumbling Boris incompetence.

They'd lynch him. It would be the subject of ridicule for centuries.

It would be hilarious if they finished that bridge just before Scotland voted to leave the UK

CelticRambler

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Erecting a hard border in the sea between NI and Britain was never voted on.

Probably because the sea is a hard border. It was already there when the referendum was announced, and there's no likelihood of it evaporating or being filled in any time in the next few millenia.

And because the sea is and always has been a hard border, (Northern) Ireland has always been considered - by the rulers of Great Britain - to be a different country. It's written into the title of the nation state. Northern Ireland is not British, not part of Great Britain and it's residents are subject to different laws and socio-economic forces than those who live on the larger island.

And until Theresa May almost signed a Withdrawal Agreement with a NI backstop, the DUP were quite happy to live with all the infrastructure that goes along with a hard geographical border - customs officers and inspection posts at all major ports of entry into Northern Ireland; but none at any crossing points along the land border.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

They feel it does, and that's all that matters ...

Yeah - same as the Leavers felt that they'd given up their sovereignty and all that stuff, when in fact, they'd never lost it. As someone remarked in recent days, if all it takes to make them feel like Brexit is a success, they can have their blue passports, their new 50p and plenty of bendy bananas, all while remaining part of the EU.

In the harsh reality of international politics, feelings don't matter. The DUP gambled on "feeling" and lost. That's life.

Spanish Eyes

Hope I'm not tempting fate here, but let's say an Irish Sea border was the compromise.

All good, Ireland and NI continue as before.

But two things..... Scotland will not be impressed, and perhaps Loyalist terrorists will awaken from their GFA slumber, oh dear.

What's good for one side is not necessarily good for the other. That's NI for you. (and maybe Scotland too, not the terrorism thing, but being out of EU whilst NI has all the optical and practical benefits of being in).