2017 UK General Election - 8th June

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 10:49am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One that SF flouts every time they refer to coalition deals in the 26 counties.

You clearly don't understand what is involved here. I will leave discussing it with you as you just seem to want to make it all about SF.

10-06-2017 10:56am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You clearly don't understand what is involved here. I will leave discussing it with you as you just seem to want to make it all about SF.

I understand it perfectly well. SF are continuing their long standing disdain for democracy. They think they can discuss coalitions on one island, and even enter power sharing arrangements themselves, but they think it's unfair when it happens on the other island. Even though it's not clearly prohibited by the GFA, which they themselves negotiated. It's laughable logic.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:11am

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand it perfectly well. SF are continuing their long standing disdain for democracy. They think they can discuss coalitions on one island, and even enter power sharing arrangements themselves, but they think it's unfair when it happens on the other island. Even though it's not clearly prohibited by the GFA, which they themselves negotiated. It's laughable logic.

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:12am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And with a bit of backbone he could have knocked this on the head from the get go. By simply stating that he will have nothing to do with it and that the Irish government CANNOT, by dint of the GFA, have anything to do with it.

Next move - the Tories.

Because diplomacy.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:14am

ThisRegard wrote: »

Because diplomacy.

What, the Tories might be cross with us?

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:14am

Bambi wrote: »

In the middle of the campaign for leadership of FG Leo made a remark that a united Ireland would require more than a simple majority in NI.

And there's nothing wrong with that statement.

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:17am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What, the Tories might be cross with us?

You're really trying to make this point? Are you so naïve to expect that government and diplomacy is all done through the media?

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:18am

ThisRegard wrote: »

And there's nothing wrong with that statement.

So Leo taking it on himself to attempt to redefine a clause in the GFA (to try and annoy or get a divisive row from one side) is not 'wrong'.

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:18am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So Leo taking it on himself to attempt to redefine a clause in the GFA (to try and annoy or get a divisive row from one side) is not 'wrong'.

What clause is he redefining?

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:19am

ThisRegard wrote: »

You're really trying to make this point? Are you so naïve to expect that government and diplomacy is all done through the media?

So he's secretly trying to diplomatically stop this?

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:20am

ThisRegard wrote: »

What clause is he redefining?

The one that says 'A simple majority is enough'. The one that the British, Irish and the various signatories agreed to when they signed the thing?

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:22am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The one that says 'A simple majority is enough'. The one that the British, Irish and the various signatories agreed to when they signed the thing?

What's the clause?

10-06-2017 11:24am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

I think if such arrangements are specifically prohibited by the international agreement, then the grievance procedures in that agreement should be invoked. I believe some vague "but it's kinda unfair because it might be unfair" is not an argument, and least of all where the side advancing that argument refuses to participate in the forum where the arrangement takes place.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:25am

ThisRegard wrote: »

What's the clause?

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and
support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

Grudaire · 10-06-2017 11:25am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There are more than SF concerned about this. Park your obvious 'blame SF for everything attitude' and tell us what your opinion is of a powersharing deal organised by a government that is by dint of an international agreement, bound to be neutral?

Otherwise, I think you should open your own thread about SF's 'disdain'.

Ah shtop, IF the agreement to prop up the Tories results in anything that might unfairly influence the GFA then everyone would support what you're saying.

Otherwise this is a nonsensical complaint, and can only be overcome by removing NI's ability to elect MPs to Westminster :pac:

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 11:29am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and
support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

It says it right in your quote, introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation......

So yes, there's a lot more to it than a simple yes vote, he's not wrong.

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 11:33am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

(iv) affirm that if, in the future, the people of the island of Ireland exercise their right of
self-determination on the basis set out in sections (i) and (ii) above to bring about a
united Ireland, it will be a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish;

In other words, if the people decide by majority vote...sin é

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 11:45am

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

So how could the British government make it a 'binding obligation' to introduce and support it, if they can't?
That is why in respect to the GFA they have to(or had to agree to) be neutral.
The current proposed arrangement makes the 'government' very clearly not neutral.

Do you see the problem here?

Jamiekelly · 10-06-2017 11:50am

Labour MP Chris Leslie was on BBC radio 5 this morning hammering into Jeremy Corbyn for not being good enough to beat May. He claimed on his Twitter account after his win that his win was a "vote of confidence in myself" while nearly every single response to both that tweet and the BBC interview has been extremely negative. Many of his own constituents are reminding him that they voted for Corbyn and not him and that if he cared for his job in public service he would represent his constituency and party membership and not his own personal interests. Some are even claiming he acted like a narcissist during his door to door campaigning.

It really beggars belief that he has the knives out for Corbyn only 24 hours after Labours biggest polling victory in nearly 2 decades. It shows just how vitriolic the Labour party is behind the scenes.

From the looks of it, it appears that "New" Labour is dead and buried and some MPs won't bend the knee.

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 11:53am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how could the British government make it a 'binding obligation' to introduce and support it, if they can't?
That is why in respect to the GFA they have to(or had to agree to) be neutral.
The current proposed arrangement makes the 'government' very clearly not neutral.

Do you see the problem here?

Do you not see that their (and our) obligation starts and ends with introducing and supporting the bill. No agreement can bind a national parliament to a result. Apart from the fact that it's clearly not possible, it's also undemocratic.

In the normal run of politics, the chances of a government introducing and supporting a bill and the bill being subsequently rejected, are pretty small. The very fact of it being a government means it should have a majority. But as I said, that's not actually true of the current governments of Ireland and Britain. They are both minority governments.

Dyr · 10-06-2017 11:54am

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 11:58am

Bambi wrote: »

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

The text of the article is pretty clear. It doesn't bind the governments to the result of the plebiscite, just binds them to introduce and support the legislation. It does not bind the respective parliaments, just the governments. Can you not see the difference?

Just like the Brexit referendum wasn't binding. It also had to be passed by parliament.

10-06-2017 12:17pm

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Labour MP Chris Leslie was on BBC radio 5 this morning hammering into Jeremy Corbyn for not being good enough to beat May. He claimed on his Twitter account after his win that his win was a "vote of confidence in myself" while nearly every single response to both that tweet and the BBC interview has been extremely negative. Many of his own constituents are reminding him that they voted for Corbyn and not him and that if he cared for his job in public service he would represent his constituency and party membership and not his own personal interests. Some are even claiming he acted like a narcissist during his door to door campaigning.

It really beggars belief that he has the knives out for Corbyn only 24 hours after Labours biggest polling victory in nearly 2 decades. It shows just how vitriolic the Labour party is behind the scenes.

From the looks of it, it appears that "New" Labour is dead and buried and some MPs won't bend the knee.

In fairness, Chris Leslie made his views on Corbyn very clear long ago and his constituents had to be aware of it. He resigned from the front bench on Corbyn's election, so he has the courage of his convictions.

A Dub in Glasgo · 10-06-2017 12:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, Chris Leslie made his views on Corbyn very clear long ago and his constituents had to be aware of it. He resigned from the front bench on Corbyn's election, so he has the courage of his convictions.

The courage of his convictions would have been to resign from the LP and stand as an independent. He did not do that

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 12:25pm

Bambi wrote: »

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

A Little Pony · 10-06-2017 12:28pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So if Sinn Fein were in a position that the only way to get a government arranged for now was to go into coalition or supply and demand arrangement with FG you would be opposed to it?

SF don't pretend they didn't play a part in the conflict. That is the difference here. They have members who were in the IRA.
They are also not religious fundamentalists depriving large amounts of people of the rights they have everywhere else in these islands.

Different animals and the British are finding that out, big time. Arlene shoots herself and her party in the foot again.

I hope Ruth Davidson exposes them for everything they are.

How has she shot herself in the foot? It's the DUP wildest dreams coming true. They can now play hardball with the Tories for economic investment.

A Little Pony · 10-06-2017 12:31pm

Bambi wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So Leo is right. It will take more than a simple majority vote.

Edit: He's also right to bring it up at this time. The numerical situation in Westminster could have May's government (if this were to happen in the lifetime of this government) introduce and support such legislation but without the support of the DUP and the other parties, it would fail.

Why do people make arguments that own't stand up and then hope that some sort of pedantic wriggling will save their blushes?

The GFA laid out what was required for a united, a simple majority on both sides of the border to be in favour of it. That's what everyone signed up to

Leo decided to break ranks on that

Southern establishment don't want it. That's why.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 12:36pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

So, lets get this straight. You are saying that the GFA gives the British an opt out option in the event of the majority opting for a UI?

So the reality of that is that another clause in the agreement is also moot and a hoodwink;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement
between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their
right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given,
North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that
this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

As I suspected, there are some here who know not what they talk about. :rolleyes:

Dyr · 10-06-2017 12:50pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

ehh yes he did

"It is a return to a mindset in which a simple sectarian majority of 50pc plus one is enough to cause a change in the constitutional status of the North. "

i.e. he's refuted the core principle of the good friday agreement

"Bouncing Ulster Protestants into a unitary Irish state against their will would be as grievous a wrong as was abandoning a large Catholic minority in the North on partition"

You assume that given it was a speech rather than an interview that was'nt just Leo's tendency to run his lip without thinking. Although he might want to explain why anyone should respect the current democratic will of the people of NI when he's just dismissed a future decision by them

10-06-2017 12:50pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The courage of his convictions would have been to resign from the LP and stand as an independent. He did not do that

He's criticising Corbyn who defied the party whip more often than any other Labour MP but never resigned from the party.

A Little Pony · 10-06-2017 12:51pm

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 12:54pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He's criticising Corbyn who defied the party whip more often than any other Labour MP but never resigned from the party.

Corbyn stayed in and won. He is the leader. If you cannot oust the leader then should you be in the party?

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 12:55pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

Just review what they were saying 'he couldn't do' last week there. Silly comment tbh.

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 12:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, lets get this straight. You are saying that the GFA gives the British an opt out option in the event of the majority opting for a UI?

So the reality of that is that another clause in the agreement is also moot and a hoodwink;

(ii) recognise that it is for the people of the island of Ireland alone, by agreement
between the two parts respectively and without external impediment, to exercise their
right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given,
North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, if that is their wish, accepting that
this right must be achieved and exercised with and subject to the agreement and
consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland;

As I suspected, there are some here who know not what they talk about. :rolleyes:

You've been reading things that aren't there all morning. I never even hinted at the possibility of an opt out.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 12:59pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

You've been reading things that aren't there all morning. I never even hinted at the possibility of an opt out.

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 1:02pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

Can you not understand that the British government and the British parliament are two different things?

No international agreement can trump the sovereignty of a national parliament. That's why EU legislation still has to be formed into Irish legislation and passed by the Dail. Even referenda results still must be legislated by the Dail. The same in the UK.

There is very little chance that the result of a plebiscite on a UI would not pass the Dail. Westminster is a completely different kettle of fish.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:09pm

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Can you not understand that the British government and the British parliament are two different things?

No international agreement can trump the sovereignty of a national parliament. That's why EU legislation still has to be formed into Irish legislation and passed by the Dail. Even referenda results still must be legislated by the Dail. The same in the UK.

There is very little chance that the result of a plebiscite on a UI would not pass the Dail. Westminster is a completely different kettle of fish.

Ah right...maybe that is why it was important parliment agreed to and signed the GFA.

Are you saying Bertie Ahern is wrong here too:

The British Government are effectively out of the equation and neither the British parliament nor people have any legal right under this agreement to impede the achievement of Irish unity if it had the consent of the people North and South.

A Little Pony · 10-06-2017 1:13pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

He is just being honest. Corbyn will never be Prime Minister as he will never gain enough seats to do it.

Just review what they were saying 'he couldn't do' last week there. Silly comment tbh.

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:16pm

A Little Pony wrote: »

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

Conservatives have lost elections and so have Labour. They will both win them again.

The reality is that Labour have energised many who the Tories would prefer were dormant.

ThisRegard · 10-06-2017 1:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So, the British parliament (an outside impediment to the right of the Irish people) deciding not to act on their 'binding obligation to support the legislation' is not an opt out clause?

Pray tell us what it is?

Again, another thing I never said. Why bother debating with you when you're debating on things never said by me?

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:31pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Again, another thing I never said. Why bother debating with you when you're debating on things never said by me?

You said:

ThisRegard wrote: »

He didn't. You think that if there was a vote in which Yes was the result we'd simply become a united Ireland? That's when the real hard work begins.

What is this 'real hard work'?

A UI happens when a majority decide. There is nothing 'hard' about that.

The road to unity under the GFA is clear and simple if the people vote for it.

There may be hard work making it work, but that is an entirely separate issue.

Calina · 10-06-2017 1:36pm

Here is the point. In a performance driven culture, the expectations for the Tories was a 50 seat majority and for Labour, ignominious destruction. In the context of measuring up to goals, the Tories failed and Labour exceeded expectations by quite a bit.

It does change the dynamics within the parties, positively for Labour, chaotically for Tories, but at the same time, the formation of a government is based on the numbers of seats won.

The problem as I see it is there is no evidence that Theresa May consulted senior Tories before announcing to the world she would form a government with the DUP. A lot of her MPs are unhappy about an arrangement with the DUP. She is sowing seeds of trouble.

Corbyn was willing to try a minority government on his numbers. May was not. This tells me that despite the well publicised rifts within Labour, Corbyn expects more support from his MPs than May does of hers.

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

solodeogloria · 10-06-2017 1:45pm

Calina wrote: »

Here is the point. In a performance driven culture, the expectations for the Tories was a 50 seat majority and for Labour, ignominious destruction. In the context of measuring up to goals, the Tories failed and Labour exceeded expectations by quite a bit.

It does change the dynamics within the parties, positively for Labour, chaotically for Tories, but at the same time, the formation of a government is based on the numbers of seats won.

The problem as I see it is there is no evidence that Theresa May consulted senior Tories before announcing to the world she would form a government with the DUP. A lot of her MPs are unhappy about an arrangement with the DUP. She is sowing seeds of trouble.

Corbyn was willing to try a minority government on his numbers. May was not. This tells me that despite the well publicised rifts within Labour, Corbyn expects more support from his MPs than May does of hers.

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

Good afternoon,

I think everyone can agree this is a catastrophic result. Irrespective of party loyalties, having a situation where the public effectively can't agree who they want to govern them is a nightmare.

Practically speaking, putting party loyalty aside, one can agree given a catastrophic result, that it is better to form a majority government in coalition than to have a minority government so that effective decisions can continue to be made.

Everyone is in agreement that this is a royal cockup. The question is how do you deal with it. It's easy to be in opposition in this kind of situation, but how do you deal with it? What alternatives are any better than what is on the table now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:50pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

You really think there's no hard work after a Yes vote? You really are naïve

There is no 'hard work' in legally/legislatively unifying the country. Once the vote says YES then it is a simple act of passing the legislation as the British parliament has a 'binding obligation' to do

Please confirm that you are not talking about the passing of the legislation but are referring to what EVERYONE knows is going to be hard work - making unification work.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:51pm

Calina wrote: »

In a way, it is fascinating. It will be interesting to look back on in ten, twelve years' time.

It will be interesting to look back in a weeks time. Look back at what was being said even last week...all change this week.

CMOTDibbler · 10-06-2017 1:53pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah right...maybe that is why it was important parliment agreed to and signed the GFA.

Exactly. The Dail and Westminster are the legislative assemblies of both nations. No law can bypass them, as it were.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Are you saying Bertie Ahern is wrong here too:

Yes, I believe he is.

But that wouldn't be the first time Bertie lied through his teeth.

FrancieBrady · 10-06-2017 1:53pm

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon,

I think everyone can agree this is a catastrophic result. Irrespective of party loyalties, having a situation where the public effectively can't agree who they want to govern them is a nightmare.

Practically speaking, putting party loyalty aside, one can agree given a catastrophic result, that it is better to form a majority government in coalition than to have a minority government so that effective decisions can continue to be made.

Everyone is in agreement that this is a royal cockup. The question is how do you deal with it. It's easy to be in opposition in this kind of situation, but how do you deal with it? What alternatives are any better than what is on the table now?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

In the sense that it has totally undermined Brexit, I think it is a brilliant result for us and the rest of the EU.

The UK is in a crisis of it's own making.

Calina · 10-06-2017 1:54pm

I don't really believe it was that catastrophic. A few fewer Tory MPs from Scotland would have been better. But polarisation is a bad thing and an opportunity to look at possibilities for consensus and national unity blah would help. It is a time of crisis and including Keir Starmer un negotions would be imaginative and visionary for an intelligent Tory minority leader.

A massive Tory majority would be worse. Now they are going to be forced to address some issues and dealing with the DUP may expedite that.

First Up · 10-06-2017 1:55pm

A Little Pony wrote:

Labour lost the election, Jeremy Corbyn is not Prime Minister. Labour have no power to make changes. Once the delusion and dust settles in a few days reality will hit many in Labour.

I wouldn't call being PM thanks to the support of the Free Presbyterian Church much of a win.

solodeogloria · 10-06-2017 1:55pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In the sense that it has totally undermined Brexit, I think it is a brilliant result for us and the rest of the EU.

The UK is in a crisis of it's own making.

Good afternoon,

It depends on your vantage point. If you're thinking purely about Ireland, then yes sure, it's an interesting thing to watch at a distance for sure, and something that has an impact.

As someone who depends on the British economy to get my bread and butter each day, and as someone who has an interest in staying in the UK for the foreseeable future, my perspective is based on having a government to legislate day to day to ensure that continues.

Party loyalties aside. Nobody won the election really, the Tories got more seats, but they didn't win. That's why an agreement has to be made to set up a Government to keep the lights on.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

2017 UK General Election - 8th June

Comments