Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

1…248249251253254…320

Comments

  • #7502
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    What the DUP / Kate Hoey say from here to the end of this process is irrelevant. We know their position. So what. You've been outflanked. Unionism is irrelevant. They're now Hard Brexiters as they won't accept this deal (and the DUP probably wanted a Hard Brexit all along). Grand. I know where they are. Much more relevant and interesting discussion is to be had elsewhere.

    Unionism can't be irrelevant considering that the DUP are in an exalted position within the British government at the moment and hold the balance in certain votes and that Theresa May has said more than once that the UK can never agree to a backstop that would threaten to divide the UK.

    NI Unionism might be a backward philosophy and currently counter-productive to NI's interests, but even if there's nothing in the backstop idea that can bring the DUP to the table, we can at least not say anything to push them even further away.


  • #7503
    demfad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Anoteh good Piece by Ian Dunt:

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12/05/raab-s-threats-to-ignore-the-grieve-amendment-threatens-cons

    Less than a day after being disgraced and in contempt of parliament little seems to have changed. Raab and Leadsom are more or less saying that the Government would not legally have at Act under any direction arising out of the Grieve Amendment. They could ignore parliament and follow towards no deal as Brexit is 'will of people',etc..

    PS I predict comeone will make a meme based on Dr Strangelove which features May sitting on the released atomic bomb plunging towards calamity.


  • #7504
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,194 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    briany wrote: »
    Kate Hoey on Sky News flatly accusing the Irish government of using the backstop as a way of achieving a United Ireland.

    Quickest route to a United Ireland is not to have a backstop. The backstop gives NI the best of all worlds. Kate Hoey is a disgrace.


  • #7505
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,622 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    An Ciarraioch wrote: »
    Most bizarre suggestion is that Labour could petition the Queen, asking her to sack May, and invite Corbyn to attempt to form a government! In fairness, it did happen in Australia.

    I find it hard to fathom that Liz would interfere in Australian politics.


  • #7506
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Quickest route to a United Ireland is not to have a backstop. The backstop gives NI the best of all worlds. Kate Hoey is a disgrace.

    That's is the irony in this whole shambles. While things in the North are going reasonably well in an economic sense there is no stomach to agitate for a united Ireland from the nationalist community.
    The GFA allowed the nationalist community to feel more connected to Ireland and Europe, an invisible border played a pivotal role in this. The status quo basically ensured there would be no united Ireland for at least a generation or two.
    May's deal kept that staus quo in place and the unionists are opposing it!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #7507
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,146 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    10000maniacs wrote: »
    I find it hard to fathom that Liz would interfere in Australian politics.

    I think there is a governor who takes on the role of appointing and accepting resignations of the Australian PM on her behalf. It's only a ceremonial position though, just like the Queen and the Irish president for example.


  • #7508
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    joe40 wrote: »
    May's deal kept that staus quo in place and the unionists are opposing it!!!

    There'll be a change in their status within the United Kingdom in being in a different economic bloc. That's what the DUP are objecting to. Doesn't matter even if that arrangement would end up as advantageous for NI. It's an ideological matter for the DUP.

    No matter where the line would be drawn, whether on the NI border, or in the Irish sea, it's going to upset one side or the other and undermine the peace process. The PP and Brexit just aren't really compatible.


  • #7509
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    10000maniacs wrote: »
    I find it hard to fathom that Liz would interfere in Australian politics.
    robinph wrote: »
    I think there is a governor who takes on the role of appointing and accepting resignations of the Australian PM on her behalf. It's only a ceremonial position though, just like the Queen and the Irish president for example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

    It's not really clear how much direct involvement the Queen had, if any.


  • #7510
    bob mcbob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 971 ✭✭✭bob mcbob


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Predictable antagonistic drivel from the SNP as per usual.

    Scotland is in an economic and political union with England because it made formal requests to be so in the early 18th century.

    Scotland’s future relationship with England will be (or has been) decided by its people with a clear and unambiguous vote on the matter.

    Remarkable parallels exist between Scotland’s relationship vis a vis England, and Britain’s relationship vis a vis Europe.

    Both are there by their own volition, both are free to leave to the detriment of their economic growth and future prosperity should they wish to do so.

    How incredibly tiresome it is to hear SNP MPs wallow in self pity and bemoan their station week after week as if they remain a far flung colony taken in the age of empire building. Scotland was the empire.

    From a personal perspective, with my family home being 35 miles from France and 350 miles from Scotland, a close and productive future relationship with the former is a far more pressing concern.

    If (hopefully when) Brexit is reversed, it will be because the British people desired it, not because the SNP were the saviour of England.

    It would be a delicious outcome if Britain remained in the EU and resolved to block any future attempts from an independent Scotland to achieve fast tracked access. Petty.. maybe. But sure this is the thread for it!

    Yes bloody Scots seeking to get involved in shaping Brexit. That is for their English lords and masters only.

    The Scots really need to know their place.


  • #7511
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,841 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    As a Cockney told me, there is only one crowd they hate more than the Scots and that's the Welsh.


  • Advertisement
  • #7512
    Econ__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Econ__


    briany wrote: »
    Unionism can't be irrelevant considering that the DUP are in an exalted position within the British government at the moment and hold the balance in certain votes and that Theresa May has said more than once that the UK can never agree to a backstop that would threaten to divide the UK.

    NI Unionism might be a backward philosophy and currently counter-productive to NI's interests, but even if there's nothing in the backstop idea that can bring the DUP to the table, we can at least not say anything to push them even further away.

    It’s been clear for many months now that any Brexit settlement is going to need significant cross party support to pass, which effectively makes the DUP/ERG redundant actors in the process as the nature of their vision for Brexit has by far the least support.

    People have been surprised at the events of the past couple of days but it was quite easily foreseen if one has paid attention to the reality of the parliamentary arithmetic; No deal off the table & a straight fight between Remain and Softer Brexit.


  • #7513
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,627 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    briany wrote: »
    Unionism can't be irrelevant considering that the DUP are in an exalted position within the British government at the moment and hold the balance in certain votes and that Theresa May has said more than once that the UK can never agree to a backstop that would threaten to divide the UK.

    NI Unionism might be a backward philosophy and currently counter-productive to NI's interests, but even if there's nothing in the backstop idea that can bring the DUP to the table, we can at least not say anything to push them even further away.

    Unionism was relevant for a portion of the process (effectively a calendar year) where they held the threat of something - that being withdrawing support for the present government. They overplayed that leverage to the extent that May went ahead and concluded a deal that broke their red lines. They have now pressed the red button and abandoned their confidence and supply deal. Thus they are now irrelevant, because they have no further injury to cause. They've done what they can do and the process continues without them.


  • #7514
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,076 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    TM should have been working on garnering cross party support for the deal months ago. She instead tried to placate the ERG by talking tough, same with the DUP and at the same time treating any and all others with contempt.

    She is now surprised that she is struggling to get any support. SHe has mislead and played politics with this issue from the start and now is demanding that others simply set all that aside and work for what best for UK and not think about her. She has actively made this all about her from the start of her term.

    She was going to deliver, she was making the decisions, she was in charge, she was insulted by the EU etc.


  • #7515
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,627 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Econ__ wrote: »
    It’s been clear for many months now that any Brexit settlement is going to need significant cross party support to pass, which effectively makes the DUP/ERG redundant actors in the process as the nature of their vision for Brexit has by far the least support.

    People have been surprised at the events of the past couple of days but it was quite easily foreseen if one has paid attention to the reality of the parliamentary arithmetic; No deal off the table & a straight fight between Remain and Softer Brexit.

    This is very perceptive imo. May signing the deal she did indicated that the ERG / DUP threat had been weighed up and ultimately ignored. JRM then failing to rally 48 letters to 1922 further exposed their lack of relevance.

    They are actually now the easiest part of this whole equation to deal with for anyone trying to resolve the matter knows that they will reject everything that is possible from here. So you pencil them in as a No and move on elsewhere to build your consensus.


  • #7516
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,079 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    TM should have been working on garnering cross party support for the deal months ago. She instead tried to placate the ERG by talking tough, same with the DUP and at the same time treating any and all others with contempt.

    She is now surprised that she is struggling to get any support. SHe has mislead and played politics with this issue from the start and now is demanding that others simply set all that aside and work for what best for UK and not think about her. She has actively made this all about her from the start of her term.

    She was going to deliver, she was making the decisions, she was in charge, she was insulted by the EU etc.

    Anna Soubry as good as said so in her speech in the commons last night.

    Theresa looks to be enduring the cruelest end to the role of a PM in many many years. Having to defend an offering which is clear is now indefensible and allowing all opponents (on both sides of the hose) to ridicule and taunt her leadership through 5 days of debates before the inevitable.

    Surely her resignation is on the cars with the only thing to be confirmed is the timing.


  • #7517
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Unionism was relevant for a portion of the process (effectively a calendar year) where they held the threat of something - that being withdrawing support for the present government. They overplayed that leverage to the extent that May went ahead and concluded a deal that broke their red lines. They have now pressed the red button and abandoned their confidence and supply deal. Thus they are now irrelevant, because they have no further injury to cause. They've done what they can do and the process continues without them.

    C&S isn't quite finished yet, according to Sammy Wilson. It's certainly been a fraught relationship but so long as the DUP have the power to throw the current government into disarray (and May needs every vote she can get), it can't be said that they, or Unionism which they claim to represent is irrelevant. Maybe if and when Labour get voted in, perhaps with the SNP propping them up, could we say that Unionism (or at least NI Unionism) is irrelevant.


  • #7518
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,079 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    briany wrote: »
    C&S isn't quite finished yet, according to Sammy Wilson. It's certainly been a fraught relationship but so long as the DUP have the power to throw the current government into disarray (and May needs every vote she can get), it can't be said that they, or Unionism which they claim to represent is irrelevant. Maybe if and when Labour get voted in, perhaps with the SNP propping them up, could we say that Unionism (or at least NI Unionism) is irrelevant.

    The government is already and officially in disarray. C&S is done for.
    Sammy Wilson's words should be understood in the context that they will support May if she does exactly what the DUP want.
    Literally the tick on the tail of the dog trying to do the wagging.


  • #7519
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,134 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    ambro25 wrote: »
    Wrong.

    But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

    No because

    (i) there is no legal mechanism to ‘eject’ a Member State from the EU (the CJEU could only ever rule that the revocation application was made in bad faith, but cannot order that the MS be outed in consequence - the 2 year period re-triggered would still run) ; and

    (ii) on the basis of the AG opinion, there is a strong argument against the EU bodies and Members ever pushing for such a mechanism/outcome (‘forcing a MS out’).

    It is in good part because of (ii) above, that I highly doubt that the EU would ever ‘enforce’ the good/bad faith test (refusing an Art.50 revocation on the basis of a belief -and it would have to be a belief informed by factual past behaviour- would effectively force the withdrawing MS out at the end of the running 2-year period: which EUCO participants, or EU heads, or <relevant assessors-deciders> would be ready and willing to wear that responsibility, really?)

    A ruling from the CJEU in that context wouldn't be forcing a member state out. It would be CJEU not permitting an abuse of process, after it had been granted the statutory two years required. The member state in question would have been afforded everything it was entitled to under the previous art. 50 process.

    I can't see how a court which is set up to defend the rules of the Union allowing the rules to be used to undermine the Union.

    It wouldn't be up to the member states governments, couldn't anyone force the issue by taking it to the CJEU?


  • #7520
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,076 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Tell me how wrote: »
    Anna Soubry as good as said so in her speech in the commons last night.

    You'll have to take my word that I wasn't aware of that.


  • #7521
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    A ruling from the CJEU in that context wouldn't be forcing a member state out. It would be CJEU not permitting an abuse of process, after it had been granted the statutory two years required. The member state in question would have been afforded everything it was entitled to under the previous art. 50 process.

    I can't see how a court which is set up to defend the rules of the Union allowing the rules to be used to undermine the Union.

    It wouldn't be up to the member states governments, couldn't anyone force the issue by taking it to the CJEU?

    If the UK withdraws the Art 50, and a relatively short time later makes a new notification under Art 50, any EU citizen could appeal t the ECJ that it was an abuse of process, and if the ECJ agreed, then the Art 50 notification would be declared null. The UK would be required to remain in the EU until it could make a valid notification, rather than be ejected.

    However, should they make a new application that was valid, the EU would simply take down the WA and say - 'There you are, a ready made WA document we prepared earlier, sign here and here!'. There is already an agreed 2 year transition period, so the two years for Art 50 would cover the same period.


  • Advertisement
  • #7522
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,079 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    You'll have to take my word that I wasn't aware of that.

    No issue either way. ;)


  • #7523
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,627 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago. It merely confirms the analysis and understanding of the backstop by commentators following its publication. It won't change any minds or perceptions. Quite the non issue.

    And I can actually see why the government would have fought the matter as it sets quite a damaging precedent. Silly games all round.


  • #7524
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,079 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago. It merely confirms the analysis and understanding of the backstop by commentators following its publication. It won't change any minds or perceptions. Quite the non issue.

    And I can actually see why the government would have fought the matter as it sets quite a damaging precedent. Silly games all round.

    I'm not so sure. I think this government is solely focused on trying to get the deal through next week.

    They don't have the time or the need to worry about setting precedent as they are unlikely to be around. If nothing else, they have given the opportunity to the opposition (on both sides of the house) to say "Look at what they didn't want us to see". Even if there is nothing there.


  • #7525
    J Mysterio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,194 ✭✭✭✭J Mysterio


    briany wrote: »
    There'll be a change in their status within the United Kingdom in being in a different economic bloc. That's what the DUP are objecting to. Doesn't matter even if that arrangement would end up as advantageous for NI. It's an ideological matter for the DUP.

    No matter where the line would be drawn, whether on the NI border, or in the Irish sea, it's going to upset one side or the other and undermine the peace process. The PP and Brexit just aren't really compatible.

    Its a stupid point though. NI is already different to the rest of the UK, with different checks already in effect, whats a few more for all the benefits? It's a ridiculous argument. They can sell to both markets and enjoy a rare situation not afforded others.


  • #7526
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,969 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago.

    There isn't other than the legal advice (and legal wording) is probably a bit more frank/starker/black and white, on the reality of the backstop (i.e. may last indefinitely), than the cute/friendly/cuddly version of the backstop, that was previously being presented to parliament.

    I really think that the reality of Brexit is only now sinking in for many UK politicians (....especially the English ones).

    They are really starting to look like rabbits caught in the headlamps!


  • #7527
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    J Mysterio wrote: »
    Its a stupid point though. NI is already different to the rest of the UK, with different checks already in effect, whats a few more for all the benefits? It's a ridiculous argument. They can sell to both markets and enjoy a rare situation not afforded others.

    Ideology and pragmatism don't always align. Kind of what caused this whole Brexit thing in the first place.


  • #7528
    Folkstonian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 421 ✭✭Folkstonian


    bob mcbob wrote: »
    Yes bloody Scots seeking to get involved in shaping Brexit. That is for their English lords and masters only.

    The Scots really need to know their place.

    Scotland has historically been heavily over-represented in parliament. Scotland had the opportunity to unilaterally decide if its future was to be inside or outside the union. It will have further chances if it requires them. Your lazy slurs are factually shocking and verge on xenophobic drivel.


  • #7529
    Econ__
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Econ__


    I made this post (under my previous account) 9 months ago. The predictions are a little off in terms of the timing of events but I'd like to think I got the general thrust of the travel of direction correct!

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106463004&postcount=6093


  • #7530
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,062 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Folkstonian wrote: »
    Scotland has historically been heavily over-represented in parliament. Scotland had the opportunity to unilaterally decide if its future was to be inside or outside the union. It will have further chances if it requires them. Your lazy slurs are factually shocking and verge on xenophobic drivel.

    It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway.

    It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.


  • Advertisement
  • #7531
    Tell me how
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,079 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    briany wrote: »
    It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway.

    It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.

    If the Brexiteers think the EU is being unfriendly to the UK since it voted to leave, wait until we see how they suggest that Scotland be treated should it make moves towards secession.

    It will be outright bile and hatred.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement