Brexit discussion thread III

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, moment number two coming up fast for Leo and Simon. The DUP are clearly marking their performances out as being the suspect ones.

It's utterly hilarious how the DUP are pitifully trying to paint Varadkar and Coveney as some sort of up-the-ra republican freedom fighters

The DUP had as much right to see the document as any other party in Ireland and the UK.

How many parties got to see it before it was agreed?

And they say the Tory/DUP deal has not upset the balance of the GFA? :D

Leroy42 wrote: »

Kowtow, the you make it sound like sovereignty was taken from the UK by EU when it was exactly the same process as with Ireland. The difference is that our constitution requires the public to have a vote whereas UKs process is that the decision lies with the democratically elected government.

SO UK voters had plenty of opportunities. If they felt they weren't listened to it seems they prefer to blame the EU rather than themselves

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.

Blowfish wrote: »

Well, ****. Now it begins. Sinn Féin are going to hold rallys and protests in support of 'special status' for NI in the Brexit deals.

When have rallys and protests ever gone wrong up in NI, eh?

In fairness I can't see 'Special Status For NI In Brexit' inspiring any wanna be petrol bombers or PSNI baton charges.

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.

The last Irish prime minister before Leo Varadkar has advised that Ireland’s rhetoric regarding Brexit needs to be toned down.

In a significant intervention on Tuesday evening, Enda Kenny warned about heated language in the delicate negotiations involving Dublin, London, Belfast and Brussels.

Kenny, who was taoiseach at the time of the Brexit referendum, said:

It is important that the work being undertaken by the foreign minister Simon Coveney and Taoiseach Leo Varadkar is focussed on having an agreement on what will have to be sensitive language in order to achieve the outcome what we want here.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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 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.