Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hang on. He still needs to get the deal through the House of Commons where it'll likely be rejected again. In that scenario, he must go to the EU for an extension. Why would Remain MP's support this? Corbyn certainly can't as it means he'll be enabling a Tory Brexit.

Even if he gets it passed by the HOC he still needs an extension because there are lots of bills required to enable the WA to be compatible with UK Law


I think the Tories will need cross party support to get this through because enough of the usual suspects will revert to calling it 'vassal state' and 'surrender' and Brexit in name only' etc etc which will cause a backlash amongst the Brexit voting public that they will begin to fear for their electoral chances, and the opposition will only agree on the condition that the deal is put to the people as a 2nd referendum

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Copying pictures from the Daily Mail so you don't have to:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/10/11/17/19597832-7563433-image-a-34_1570810305546.jpg

You'd swear it was military maneuvers they were looking to detail with that graphic.

Tea Shock

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Copying pictures from the Daily Mail so you don't have to:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/10/11/17/19597832-7563433-image-a-34_1570810305546.jpg

It’s really irritating the way they always think “Northern Ireland” and “Ulster” is the same thing!

Mr.Nice Guy

L1011 wrote: »

Their actual viewpoint is going to be a hell of a lot closer to the Telegraph leader than that. You may find one or two with personal opinions but its not ERG-wide.

The DUP are useful idiots for them. That's it.

There's no evidence for this though is there, which is why it reads like wishful thinking. There's been nothing to suggest the ERG will en masse desert the DUP, and there are more than one or two who are aligned with their view of the Union. This is Johnson's problem in the event of a tight vote: their opinions could decide it.

L1011

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There's no evidence for this though is there, which is why it reads like wishful thinking. There's been nothing to suggest the ERG will en masse desert the DUP, and there are more than one or two who are aligned with their view of the Union. This is Johnson's problem in the event of a tight vote: their opinions could decide it.

We have evidence that the ERG are self-serving and change what they present in public constantly, though

They'll drop the DUP the second its politically expedient. There is no great love of "the sacred union" or whatever.

Mr.Nice Guy

L1011 wrote: »

We have evidence that the ERG are self-serving and change what they present in public constantly, though

They'll drop the DUP the second its politically expedient. There is no great love of "the sacred union" or whatever.

We also have evidence of May's third meaningful vote where Johnson and Rees-Mogg voted for the deal despite having suggested to the DUP they wouldn't, yet the likes of Baker, Francois, Cash, Redwood etc. stuck to their previous conviction and did not.

'They'll drop the DUP' comes across like the notion that 'the EU 27 will drop Dublin'. Both examples of wishful thinking.

CelticRambler

Were I holed up with Cummings, planning a glorious Tory victory in the next GE, the one lesson I would have learnt from the last election was to do everything possible not to be dependent on the DUP. They killed Theresa May's WA v.0.0.1 which sounds like it's coming back from the dead to haunt the HoC all over again. For two years, the DUP has been a millstone 'round the Tory neck, being at the same time a miniscule, largely irrelevant party (from a British point of view) that won't compromise on anything, and a useful excuse on which the ERG and others can pin their objections.

Unless he's removed from office and/or rendered unelectable by scandal, Johnson will be fighting the next election as the leader of a fractured party facing a highly motivated Brexit Party. The last thing he needs is to have to pander to the whims of a bunch of contrary Paddies!

ancapailldorcha

murphaph wrote: »

They never thought they'd win. They just did it to be more British or something.

I mean.... Jokes aside what were they actually thinking? They had everything. Free money from Westminster so they never had to face the consequences of spending all of their time spouting ideological nonsense instead of trying to chart a course for Northern Ireland. I'm a Unionist myself but obsessing over nonsense like the Irish language act or whatever isn't leadership. Meanwhile, you have people growing up in NI today wondering why these men with sashes and bowler hats keep ranting about homosexuals and generally being rather unpleasant, to put it politely.

Northern Ireland currently holds the world record for time spent without a government, 1,000 days as I write this (Give or take a day or two, Belgium at 400-odd was the previous record holder). The British taxpayer has spent over £12 million on salaries during this time.

The simple and somewhat snide thing might be to point the finger at the Treaty of Rome and maybe lament the fact that the Europeans couldn't have moved it to Florence, Naples or perhaps, ironically, Pompeii.

Levity aside, I think that the idea of a Brussels-centric project has always irked the DUP somewhat. Farming subsidies and investment into NI meant they could never really get properly on board the Eurosceptic bandwagon until 2016. Perhaps they think that Westminster will just up the subsidies to compensate for anything lost from Brussels. Who knows but it seems unlikely that a party so devoted to such an adversarial and sectarian culture based on flag burning and rubbing a nearly 340-year old victory into the faces of Northern Ireland's nationalists was every going to worry about such materialistic things as who'll be footing the bill for NI.

I think Brexit was a chance for them to make a show of their commitment to the Union. Maybe they expected defeat in which case it would have made for a nice gesture. Now, they've managed to place themselves squarely at the forefront of the British political arena only to show that they're the party most divorced from the traditional British values of fair play, tolerance and respect.

As ever, Brexit continues to reliably produce industrial levels of irony.

L1011

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

We also have evidence of May's third meaningful vote where Johnson and Rees-Mogg voted for the deal despite having suggested to the DUP they wouldn't, yet the likes of Baker, Francois, Cash, Redwood etc. stuck to their previous conviction and did not.

'They'll drop the DUP' comes across like the notion that 'the EU 27 will drop Dublin'. Both examples of wishful thinking.

They were never going to vote for it anyway!

You are trusting the ERG at their word. That is never a good idea.

CelticRambler

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Copying pictures from the Daily Mail so you don't have to:

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/10/11/17/19597832-7563433-image-a-34_1570810305546.jpg

I see they've used the M-word. Why is it so difficult for some people to call the neighbouring island Great Britain, as it's described on their passports? :rolleyes:

Tea Shock wrote: »

It’s really irritating the way they always think “Northern Ireland” and “Ulster” is the same thing!

For once, there's a certain logic, as traffic across the Irish Sea from GB will end up in either Leinster or Ulster ports. Under this speculative agreement, even if there's a common rule book, there will be different protocols in place at the Ulster ports.

But maybe I'm attributing more intellectual competence to the writers than they deserve ... :pac:

Mr.Nice Guy

L1011 wrote: »

They were never going to vote for it anyway!

You are trusting the ERG at their word. That is never a good idea.

If they'll drop them when it's convenient, why didn't they do so as Johnson, Raab, Rees-Mogg did when they thought it was?

It's not a question of trust, it's about understanding what their interests are. You are allowing what you want to happen influence what is most likely to happen.

No one would cheer louder more than me if they got up one after another and began shafting the DUP to their face, but it's not likely.

L1011

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If they'll drop them when it's convenient, why didn't they do so as Johnson, Raab, Rees-Mogg did when they thought it was?

It's not a question of trust, it's about understanding what their interests are. You are allowing what you want to happen influence what is most likely to happen.

No one would cheer louder more than me if they got up one after another and began shafting the DUP to their face, but it's not likely.

They were still useful idiots at that time. They are still useful idiots now. Their interests are in having someone else to blame.

There are very, very few people who aren't certain they're about to throw the DUP under a resurrected Wrightbus any moment now.

L1011

AKennedubb wrote: »

Simple question.

What are the conditions for the SoS to call a border poll?

Julian Smith was on BBC's The View last night and Mark Carruthers asked him what the conditions were. He avoided the question.

So what are the conditions?

A belief that it has a realistic chance of passing.

That's it. Its not properly defined. Most likely a Nationalist majority in Stormont or damn close to would be the main tipping point - opinion polls aren't likely to cut it.

Possibly also a >50% Nationalist vote in elections that do not deliver a Nationalist majority; but its not like Stormont is egregiously gerrymandered (it is a tad - its based on Westminster constituencies and some of them are really warped to preserve DUP seats) and its PR-STV - as are their council seats.


Of course, if Alliance hold their new ground there will likely never be a majority for either side ever again and they may have to go off opinion polling.

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hang on. He still needs to get the deal through the House of Commons where it'll likely be rejected again. In that scenario, he must go to the EU for an extension. Why would Remain MP's support this? Corbyn certainly can't as it means he'll be enabling a Tory Brexit.

Some suggestions that remain minded MPs might sell support for a deal in return for a confirmatory referendum. Still unlikely that Boris would opt for this, though it really depends on how he feels the numbers are stacked up and how much he really wants a deal. Still needs to get a deal first though.

L1011

AKennedubb wrote: »

There was a recent opinion poll to show a majority in favour of reunification. Why wasn't a poll called then?

How can the SoS come of the belief that it has a chance of passing?

Because its only a single opinion poll. There would need to be a hell of a lot more than that.

L1011

AKennedubb wrote: »

Also, what exactly is the 50%+1 majority! Is it the same as 51% or is it 50.1%?

50.000000000(recurring)1% - one single vote more than 50%.

A tie - however implausible - would not be considered a won vote.

Strazdas

There has to be a suspicion Johnson and Cummings are up to something and are not negotiating with the EU in good faith.

They are two slippery characters and could u-turn away from the current position in the blink of an eye.

jimmycrackcorm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The problem for Unionism is that it stitches the northern economy further into the rest of Ireland/EU. In the longer term if GB diverges from EU norms, and the north keeps aligned, then the north fully ejecting itself from EU arrangements becomes practically and politically implausible.

Or... The problem is that NI does so well from the combined benefits of EU/UK that joining a United Ireland will be a disadvantage.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

A belief that it has a realistic chance of passing.

That's it. Its not properly defined. Most likely a Nationalist majority in Stormont or damn close to would be the main tipping point - opinion polls aren't likely to cut it.

Possibly also a >50% Nationalist vote in elections that do not deliver a Nationalist majority; but its not like Stormont is egregiously gerrymandered (it is a tad - its based on Westminster constituencies and some of them are really warped to preserve DUP seats) and its PR-STV - as are their council seats.


Of course, if Alliance hold their new ground there will likely never be a majority for either side ever again and they may have to go off opinion polling.

I think it is 'that the SoS for NI is of the mind that such a poll would be carried by more than 50% of the votes cast'. That is it would solely be in the gift of the SoS.

We have discovered of late all those unsuspected powers that the Speaker can wield when he is so minded.

woohoo!!!

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The problem for Unionism is that it stitches the northern economy further into the rest of Ireland/EU. In the longer term if GB diverges from EU norms, and the north keeps aligned, then the north fully ejecting itself from EU arrangements becomes practically and politically implausible.

Or... The problem is that NI does so well from the combined benefits of EU/UK that joining a United Ireland will be a disadvantage.

Getting a good deal for NI goes a hell of a way further to securing the union than a no deal. There's the ladder to climb down.

Leroy42

I don't understand why this is seen as a good deal for RoI. We will still have access issues with the UK, still have the issue of the land bridge, and now have to deal with additional checks.

Wasn't the idea that a No Deal was so bad for the UK that they would have to come back to the table? Surely this fudge solves nothing and only gives the UK better bargaining power in the trade talks as Ireland have already shown they have no stomach for a crash out.

I fail to see why anyone would be happy, except for the very short term, about this type of deal.

L1011

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't understand why this is seen as a good deal for RoI. We will still have access issues with the UK, still have the issue of the land bridge, and now have to deal with additional checks.

Wasn't the idea that a No Deal was so bad for the UK that they would have to come back to the table? Surely this fudge solves nothing and only gives the UK better bargaining power in the trade talks as Ireland have already shown they have no stomach for a crash out.

I fail to see why anyone would be happy, except for the very short term, about this type of deal.

This is the deal from 2017 - it is not some magic new deal with concessions - that is just UK spin for domestic consumption

The transition period pushes any potential landbridge problems down the road.

threeball

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The problem for Unionism is that it stitches the northern economy further into the rest of Ireland/EU. In the longer term if GB diverges from EU norms, and the north keeps aligned, then the north fully ejecting itself from EU arrangements becomes practically and politically implausible.

Or... The problem is that NI does so well from the combined benefits of EU/UK that joining a United Ireland will be a disadvantage.

It's far more likely that despite a deal the British economy would still contract significantly and the 8bn black hole that is the North would once again be front and centre as the prime fat to be trimmed. Ideas of a runaway British economy in the wake of brexit are pure fantasy.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't understand why this is seen as a good deal for RoI. We will still have access issues with the UK, still have the issue of the land bridge, and now have to deal with additional checks.

Wasn't the idea that a No Deal was so bad for the UK that they would have to come back to the table? Surely this fudge solves nothing and only gives the UK better bargaining power in the trade talks as Ireland have already shown they have no stomach for a crash out.

I fail to see why anyone would be happy, except for the very short term, about this type of deal.

We don't know what the proposal is yet. This is not the trade deal anyway, this is just the WA and a backstop for what happens if trade talks fail or produce an agreement that fails to keep the border open.

LeinsterDub

Strazdas wrote: »

There has to be a suspicion Johnson and Cummings are up to something and are not negotiating with the EU in good faith.

They are two slippery characters and could u-turn away from the current position in the blink of an eye.

The EU can only assume they are operating on good faith while at the same time planning for the worst anything else would be the EU acting in bad faith

Strazdas

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The EU can only assume they are operating on good faith while at the same time planning for the worst anything else would be the EU acting in bad faith

Absolutely, but I wouldn't be surprised for a moment to hear by Monday talks have broken down and we're back to square one. Only Johnson and Cummings know the real score.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Absolutely, but I wouldn't be surprised for a moment to hear by Monday talks have broken down and we're back to square one. Only Johnson and Cummings know the real score.

At some point, the scattergun lies strategy becomes self-defeating. At some point, ordinary people begin to realise that what Johnson tells them, or what 'sources' tell them, is never true. You can only go to the lying well so many times no matter how much people have been conditioned.

murphaph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Or... The problem is that NI does so well from the combined benefits of EU/UK that joining a United Ireland will be a disadvantage.

If NI starts to do really well the Barnett formula will be adjusted so it gets less funding from London, perhaps negative funding. If NI is doing well it'll be because GB has become much less attractive as a place to do business. It will become poorer. NI may have to start sending money the other way in such a Twilight zone world.

At that point their economy would be aligned with ours as they'd have realigned to focus on the wealthier EU market and a UI would be a fairly easy option for them.

I actually don't see a scenario apart from revoke that doesn't make a UI more likely.

blackcard

So if the proposed deal goes through, will it be like this?
ROI exporting directly to Britain, goes through customs and tariffs will be paid as per future trade agreement
Britain exporting directly to ROI, goes through customs and tariffs will be paid as per future trade agreement. Goods will also have to meet EU standards, checked at customs.
Northern Ireland exporting to say France, tariffs paid as per future trade agreement, goods will have to meet EU standards
Northern Ireland exporting to Britain. Tariffs have to paid but these can be refunded if you can prove that they originated in NI.
Britain exporting to NI. Tariffs to be paid as if they were exported to EU. These are refunded if you can prove that the destination is NI. Goods will have to meet EU standards? This is checked by EU officials?
No checks or tariffs between Ni and ROI

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't understand why this is seen as a good deal for RoI. We will still have access issues with the UK, still have the issue of the land bridge, and now have to deal with additional checks.

Wasn't the idea that a No Deal was so bad for the UK that they would have to come back to the table? Surely this fudge solves nothing and only gives the UK better bargaining power in the trade talks as Ireland have already shown they have no stomach for a crash out.

I fail to see why anyone would be happy, except for the very short term, about this type of deal.

The only thing I'd be happy about this deal would be if it at least fixed the border issue. All brexits hurt us, but we have little influence on what sort of brexit the UK decides on. So we can hope for other outcomes, but that's about it.