nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit Discussion Thread VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Leroy42

The idea about Ref2 all seem to be based on the assumption that Remain wins. What if Leave wins again. It would have been another waste of time. And I think there is a very big chance of leave winning. Both main parties want Brexit, the polls haven't shifted that much and it is likely to be quite a degree of pushback on the notion of being asked to vote again as it has never been raised by either main leader as the way forward and will be sold by the leave side as a demand from the EU, trying to push the UK into voting the 'right' way. It is a strength, and sometimes a weakness, of the British, that they are very stubborn and no not like being told what to do.

So rather than waste time on a Ref2, which may well simply waste time, surely it would be best to advocate for the softest Brexit possible.

Yet the HoC emphatically turned down what was essentially a version of soft Brexit by way of TM deal. The only realistic options, IMO, is an even softer deal (Norway etc) or a hard deal. The rest is merely time wasting for all involved.

EdgeCase

Thomas_IV wrote: »

It's quite the same with the Trump voters in the USA, all the same pattern and Twatter and Facebook contributed a lot to his election. For me Twatter and Facebook are the same like the tabloids in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland are, utter rubbish press the lot of them. It wouldn't be that worse if it wasn't for the people who fall for their lies and exaggerations.

The problem is that the US is a superpower. The UK absolutely is not but has never really accepted or understood that. It's living in a fantasy about how it was a century ago.

Whatever happens with Trump, the US has enormous momentum in terms of the scale of its economy and global influence. He can do damage, but he's unlikely to sink the ship.

The UK however could sink. It's a very much smaller, more narrowly focused economy that's hugely dependent on being a hub of trade. It's cutting off it's biggest and deepest trading relationship due to nationalist politics and isolationism being rebranded as globalism.

The politics may be similar but it's like comparing a nuclear powered massive scale aircraft carrier and a car ferry. You possibly don't want to arrogantly take on China in a car ferry.

spitonmedickie

Rookie Brexit thread poster here - have tried to google it but when the Taoiseach speaks about the "24 hour rule" and the border here what does he mean?
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fg-ministers-shocked-by-rosss-gaffe-over-border-37720614.html

FrancieBrady

Akrasia wrote: »

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

I can see how she is snookered on that one. Brexiteers would lose the plot and I dare say a few remainers (faced with having to eventually face their constituents) would have a problem with it too.
Corbyn knows he is calling for something that can't be given I think or playing politics in other words.

Thomas_IV

Akrasia wrote: »

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

Akrasia wrote: »

Just to add, the motion should also state that article 50 can only be enacted again following a referendum.

This is a way of getting the 2nd Referendum by the back door and guaranteeing there can be no crash out

Although all that makes sense, I doubt that this is going to happen. The Brits can see themselves lucky enough if they get a BrexitRef2. The chances for that would be better if Corbyn wasn't leader of the LP.

One never knows what change might come at the last minute, but until then and as it looks these days, it's rather more probable that it'll be a hard Brexit in the end. This political mess is leading to it. This because the Brits won't change their red lines (as requested by the EU for altering the WA) and the EU is by now really fed up with this Brexit Circus.

It's entirely up to the Brits to change their mind and if they don't, the preparations for this no-deal Brexit will be implemented. It really needs a change in the leadership of both parties, the Tories and Labour to have more pragmatic leaders replacing the currently acting to get a change. It doesn't look like this is going to happen soon.

I think that the point is already reached by many to say enough is enough and it is this deal or nothing. Better to stay in the EU but this option can only prevail if there is a BrexitRef2 and as a result of it a majority for Remain. I am really not optimistic on that and I fear that the hardliners will have their way by default and the incapability of the moderates to prevail.

Corbyn has his fair share in all this as he could do otherwise but he's as stubborn like the other Brexiters and just to demand from the govt to take a no-deal Brexit off the table is not enough. It is in fact nothing but hot air he's spouting as he always does. Otherwise he would back up a BrexitRef2 and go for it. But unless he's forced to act in that direction he won't Support it.

Leroy42

As Ken Clarke said yesterday (I think it was yesterday, its all becoming a blur) that actually the WA is the easy bit. In basically involved 3 items (NI, citizens rights and the financial obligation) and yet they have spent 2+ years and ended up with the biggest defeat in HoC history.

How they think they have any chance of concluding a trade deal in a time frame even close to that is beyond a joke.

Akrasia

Just to add, the motion should also state that article 50 can only be enacted again following a referendum.

This is a way of getting the 2nd Referendum by the back door and guaranteeing there can be no crash out

Akrasia

The house of commons needs to take no deal off the table, they need to pass a motion saying "if the house has not passed a motion supporting a withdrawal agreement before 28th of March, article 50 gets automatically withdrawn on 29th of march (unless an extension has been agreed with the EU)"

Thomas_IV

Russman wrote: »

That's the really worrying point. I still struggle to see how they appear to have this blind faith that "it'll be alright on the night". I just can't get my head around it tbh. I suppose when you have the likes of Davis and JRM and tabloid darlings like BoJo telling them it'll be grand, a good portion see them as their "leaders" or there's at least a degree of gravitas (however subconscious) attached to being an MP, its maybe easier to see how they've been duped.

It's quite the same with the Trump voters in the USA, all the same pattern and Twatter and Facebook contributed a lot to his election. For me Twatter and Facebook are the same like the tabloids in the UK and in the Republic of Ireland are, utter rubbish press the lot of them. It wouldn't be that worse if it wasn't for the people who fall for their lies and exaggerations.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

We've never had a referendum on leaving the EU, so the question of who campaigned to leave doesn't really come up. CHBS's claim was not that they had campaigned to leave the EU but that they had campaigned against the EU - an important distinction.

And i don't know about "eurosceptic at times"; I'm old enough to remember that Sinn Fein was soligly eurosceptic for decades. As you point out they opposed Ireland's accession to the EU. They opposed the Single European Act in 1987, which they saw as a "surrender of power" to "the NATO-dominated EEC". They opposed the Amsterdam Treaty. They opposed the Maastricht Treaty. They opposed the Nice Treaty (both times).

For a long time this was just a visceral attitude, based on a traditional nationalist conception of what European integration would mean. I think it was really only in the 2000s, as a result of their pivot towards electoral politics and with the dawning realisation of the signficance of EU institutions and EU elections as all-Ireland political realities, that SF really began to reconsider this and engage more constructively but, even with that, they campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the European Fiscal Compact in 2012. They've never had an affiliation with any European political party.

In fact, I'm happy to be corrected here, but I struggle to think of any campaign in which Sinn Fein has taken a pro-European or pro-EU stance.

There was no referendum until there was a referendum in the UK but there were plenty campaigning to leave. There is no history of SF capaigning to leave that I can see.

Many Irish people have problems with the EU and have expressed that scepticism at the ballot box.
SF take their seats in the EU...an EU that has come to see the importance of Special Status for northern Ireland. Like FG they didn't always see it that way.
Who convinced/influenced both (FG and the EU), to my mind the people who has that view from the very start of this process have to be in the frame.

Russman

EdgeCase wrote: »

None of them are really seeing the risk or the big picture beyond the Westminster bubble.

I also genuinely don't think most British people and a huge section of the British media understand or appreciate just how seismic this could be. They've been used to very stable economics and trade for decades and just assume that it's all a big fuss about nothing and it'll be business as usual come the first Monday after March 29th.

That's the really worrying point. I still struggle to see how they appear to have this blind faith that "it'll be alright on the night". I just can't get my head around it tbh. I suppose when you have the likes of Davis and JRM and tabloid darlings like BoJo telling them it'll be grand, a good portion see them as their "leaders" or there's at least a degree of gravitas (however subconscious) attached to being an MP, its maybe easier to see how they've been duped.

Thomas_IV

Russman wrote: »

I agree a second Ref is what's needed to clear the logjam somewhat. If MPs can be asked to vote again, why not the people who put them there ?
I'm not convinced the DUP voters will vote for another party though. Up there its pretty much a sectarian headcount regardless of policies.

You're quite right there and I see it the same way as you do and more so in regards of the DUP a Party which is in my considered opinion the real curse of NI and now it is for the whole UK. They are worse than the Shinners and always have been. I was always suspicious about the 'chuckle brothers' cos I never trusted that old hatepreacher Paisley, I rather trusted McGuinness.

That doesn't make me a Shinner but one knew that in his own way, he was at least some upright character (by all his faults regarding his past). Paisley was always the devil with the bible in his hands to me. I never bought in this change of this man cos the mentality that shaped his Party by himself and his leadership of it right from the start is still to see up to this day by his successors of which Mrs Foster is the worst of them and she proves that always.

I just came across some article about her yesterday, just reading the headline of it. It was about that she said that 'there was never a hard border in Northern Ireland'. What an utter stupid ly this line is and one could wonder where she had been all her life if not in NI and knowing about the past in which she herself lived. The other chap of her Party joined in yesterday claiming that the border in NI was only due to Republicans. Utter Unionist-BS-Propaganda cos the first thing the NI govt did in 1922 was to 'secure' the border between NI and the Irish Free State.

Well, I am not saying that the govt of the Irish Free State in its early years didn't want to remove that border and the IRA had their border campaigns as well. But to say like this other DUPper that this was only due to Republicans isn't right cos they wanted that border themselves as well. I suspect that in secret, they still want to have it like they still dream of the past days of the Stormont Regime like their fellow diehard Brexiters of the ERG still dream of the BE. Dinosaurs the lot of them and that is why there is this stalemate in Brexit on the UK side.

EdgeCase

Fundamentally this is a Tory civil war and May sees herself as the Tory Leader before she sees herself as the Prime Minister.

I don't think many British PMs really make the leap from being their party leader to being "The Prime Minister" and taking on that real national leadership role. She certainly hasn't. She's deeply embedded in internal party politics and isn't really stepping up to the plate.

I think it'll be a crash out - the leadership across the board is either weak or dogmatic. None of them are really seeing the risk or the big picture beyond the Westminster bubble.

I also genuinely don't think most British people and a huge section of the British media understand or appreciate just how seismic this could be. They've been used to very stable economics and trade for decades and just assume that it's all a big fuss about nothing and it'll be business as usual come the first Monday after March 29th.

Thomas_IV

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The shennanigans in Westminster are entertaining but largely irrelevant.
The simple fact here is the UK cannot have the Brexit they want ( one that hurts northern Ireland) because the EU have listened. I have shown in the links posted above that SF were standing up for the people long before FG were and even the EU.

It is just factually wrong to say they have no influence. The DUP have been complaining from before the GFA about the influence they have.

The influence of SF on Brexit is just 'marginal' if not to say non-existing cos a hard Brexit and in consequence of that the break up of the UK in order to leave NI with no other option but to vote for a UI is what SF is just waiting for.

SF is just watching this Circus and waiting for the end of it which will be a hard Brexit that in the mid to long run makes way for a UI.

As for the DUP, they've shown for years that they are not fit for government cos they are regressive and more so since Mrs Foster has taken over the leadership of that party. Now the whole UK can see what sort of people they are but unfortunately there are certainly still a lot of people in NI that vote for them, no matter what.

Russman

DOCARCH wrote: »

DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.

Does there even have to be a motion for a no-deal, given its the default ? Could they simply just run out of time and find a no-deal has happened on the morning of 30th, while still bleating on about how Europe has to step up to the plate ?

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Maybe it would be best to first have a BrexitRef2 and than a snap GE to get the DUP off the leavers of power or better still reduce the number of their seats in the HoC (given that some DUP voters would vote for another Party in NI which is more pragmatic on finding a solution).

I agree a second Ref is what's needed to clear the logjam somewhat. If MPs can be asked to vote again, why not the people who put them there ?
I'm not convinced the DUP voters will vote for another party though. Up there its pretty much a sectarian headcount regardless of policies.

Thomas_IV

kuro68k wrote: »

Blair was on Radio 4 this morning. Not a fan but he is often insightful. Nailed the basic problem - May won't commit to any particular brexit because it would upset half her party, and is just trying to get past March 29th when they can't do much about it any more.

That's the whole point and therefore all talks are just another waste of time and hot air.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Enlighten us. When have they campaigned to leave the EU?

We've never had a referendum on leaving the EU, so the question of who campaigned to leave doesn't really come up. CHBS's claim was not that they had campaigned to leave the EU but that they had campaigned against the EU - an important distinction.

And i don't know about "eurosceptic at times"; I'm old enough to remember that Sinn Fein was soligly eurosceptic for decades. As you point out they opposed Ireland's accession to the EU. They opposed the Single European Act in 1987, which they saw as a "surrender of power" to "the NATO-dominated EEC". They opposed the Amsterdam Treaty. They opposed the Maastricht Treaty. They opposed the Nice Treaty (both times).

For a long time this was just a visceral attitude, based on a traditional nationalist conception of what European integration would mean. I think it was really only in the 2000s, as a result of their pivot towards electoral politics and with the dawning realisation of the signficance of EU institutions and EU elections as all-Ireland political realities, that SF really began to reconsider this and engage more constructively but, even with that, they campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the European Fiscal Compact in 2012. They've never had an affiliation with any European political party.

In fact, I'm happy to be corrected here, but I struggle to think of any campaign in which Sinn Fein has taken a pro-European or pro-EU stance.

kuro68k

Blair was on Radio 4 this morning. Not a fan but he is often insightful. Nailed the basic problem - May won't commit to any particular brexit because it would upset half her party, and is just trying to get past March 29th when they can't do much about it any more.

FrancieBrady

devnull wrote: »

Corbyn still gunning for an election whilst the car runs closer and closer to the edge of the cliff Unnoticed by him.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1085806730020147200

Thought above tweet summed up situation very well.

He safe in the knowledge that there won't be a No Deal. Despite all the bluster and bravado the fear of going it alone is now palable in the UK political class i

FrancieBrady

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Yeh the same EU that sinn fein campaigned repeatedly against in every referendum and election for as far back as I can remember.

Same SF who for years used same arguments brexiters make.

The same sinn fein refusing to represent the people who elected them at a time the voices of Irish people both sides of border need to be heard in a parliament that repeatedly shown contempt for this island and its people.

Enlighten us. When have they campaigned to leave the EU?

Like many in Ireland they were against joining (you might educate yourself by researching who all were against it) and like many they may be Euro sceptic at times but I am not aware of them behaving like Brexiteers.
Nobody has suggested the EU is a perfect entity in all this btw.

FrancieBrady

PeadarCo wrote: »

SF are irrelevant in terms of Brexit they are not in power in the Dail not in power in Stormont and by not taking seats in Westminster can't influence things there. I don't have an issue per say with SF policy however I would advise you to listen to some of the debate in Westminster its scary how clueless elements are about NI. It would be nice that someone could confront it face on.
Just to clarify my comments stem from frustration with alot of MPs and how little their knowledge and attitude has changed since the vote and all that has happened.

The shennanigans in Westminster are entertaining but largely irrelevant.
The simple fact here is the UK cannot have the Brexit they want ( one that hurts northern Ireland) because the EU have listened. I have shown in the links posted above that SF were standing up for the people long before FG were and even the EU.

It is just factually wrong to say they have no influence. The DUP have been complaining from before the GFA about the influence they have.

Thomas_IV

DOCARCH wrote: »

Only chance of this ending with any sanity is if decision making is taken from government/executive and transferred to the house/MPs, which may happen next week (if Bercow facilitates).

May is totally boxed in! It appears any which way she turns from now on will be very problematic for her (....staying in power).

DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.

It should be clear by now that the only sane way out of this mess is to call and give way for a BrexitRef2 and let the electorate decide on it and this time is has to be legal binding to the govt and Parliament.

A snap GE would only make sense to me when Corbyn is replaced by Starmer as leader of the LP. Corbyn has not just lost the no-confidence vote he has already lost the plot himself. He can't win a GE for the LP, he should resign for good now.

Maybe it would be best to first have a BrexitRef2 and than a snap GE to get the DUP off the leavers of power or better still reduce the number of their seats in the HoC (given that some DUP voters would vote for another Party in NI which is more pragmatic on finding a solution).

An extension of the leave date until the end of July 2019 doesn't make much sense unless one of the above said measures take place. A majority for Remain in a BrexitRef2 would make it more easy for the UK govt to withdraw the Art50 application and thus make Brexit obsolete as this can be done unilaterally by the UK govt. Such was the ruling of the European Court last month.

For the time being, I anticipate that this Circus will drag on.

devnull

Corbyn still gunning for an election whilst the car runs closer and closer to the edge of the cliff Unnoticed by him.

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1085806730020147200

Thought above tweet summed up situation very well.

Christy42

Surely every side in an agreement will try and do that.

This is also the future of the country on the verge of a disaster. They need to try and stop it.

Enzokk

wiggle16 wrote: »

There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that, even though the entire idea of Brexit (sans the xenophobia that spawned it) is that the UK will be free to strike its own super-amazing trade deals "across the globe" as if the East India Tea Company will be setting sail again, they barely managed to negotiate this one, after two and a half years, and they don't even want it.

I know this deal is more than just a trade deal in that it's to set out the UK's future legal relationship with the EU and the border is a fatal complication, but in this case they were negotiating with an economic power that doesn't want to hurt them or exploit them. How are they going to fare against the US or China etc when this shítshow is the best they could manage? They are seriously overestimating their own clout and paying no heed to the fact that other nations want good trade deals for themselves, not for the UK.

As Seamus has said, at this point, it's over. May does not have the time to get a new deal nor the mandate, the EU will not consider another one and the reactions from the EU over the last 24 hours has shown that they are fed up and want to be shot of the whole thing at this stage. The only realistic grounds, I believe, upon which Article 50 would be extended would be if the UK were to call a referendum for the deal vs Remain - and with the EU elections coming up there isn't time for that either (the legal minimum period between calling a referendum and voting in the UK is ten weeks, never mind organising it) in addition to the fact that the UK is historically averse to referendums in general, as they've only ever had 3 UK wide referendums and they are not legally binding on the government.

While this negotiation is different than a trade deal, the trade deal negotiation will be harder than this. I think there is a reason why trade deals take 7 years or more to complete and that is when both sides are looking to reach a deal. The UK will have a steep learning curve if they go for a Canada trade deal instead of EEA option. Expect more stories of humiliation to come during the trade deal talks.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Except that the number of MPs who want to leave with no deal at all is the smallest group of all - one-sixth of the Commons, maybe one-fifth, tops. And since the remainers, and most of the supports of May's deal, would dislike no-deal even more than they dislike one another's position, rationally they should be prepared to do a deal with one another for a Remainy Brexit rather than allow no deal to happen.

I know; people are not behaving entirely rationally here. But most of the truly batsh1t ones are in the "no-deal" camp; they're not the ones who have to make some concession to common sense for this to work.

While the number for no-deal is the smallest in the HoC it is still a likely option because it is the default. If there is no agreement on any option before 29 March it will be no deal and that is extremely worrying. You would expect the central block in both parties along with the SNP, LibDems and the rest to go for revocation of article 50 along with a majority of Labour and some Tories. But what happens if May and Corbyn whips against that? I am at least ambivalent to May being a remainer and I know Corbyn wants to leave the EU.

That scenario is not the most likely, but that I am contemplating it makes this whole situation insane.

Edit: Let me try to make sense of my own post, I think most MPs want to avoid no deal so it doesn't have the most support, but unless there is a viable option that they can get behind it is the most likely to happen. MPs will want some security if they are going to revoke article 50 without a referendum and I don't just don't see anything that will make them do that.

DOCARCH wrote: »

Only chance of this ending with any sanity is if decision making is taken from government/executive and transferred to the house/MPs, which may happen next week (if Bercow facilitates).

May is totally boxed in! It appears any which way she turns from now on will be very problematic for her (....staying in power).

DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.

May is boxed in, Corbyn needs to be dragged to support the Labour conference policy and even then there is not enough time for that any longer. You cannot get rid of either leader right now and parliament is in paralysis unless you have a new government of unity. But you can only do this if you have no confidence in the current government and this will fail again.

Also, from a Labour perspective, why would you work with May to get a Brexit passed? You know she will claim the all the plaudits when it passes and will pass all of the negatives to the other parties. Anyone remember the coalition?

Thomas_IV

Christy42 wrote: »

I believe that Corbyn should have gone to the meeting. However it shows that discussion in the UK has never understood the Irish situation when they give out to Corbyn for having terrorist sympathies. May is currently in government with the DUP and they never seem to cop that connection.

If he would be a pragmatic leader instead of an ideological which he is to the bone, he would have gone to the meeting. But he certainly has to realise that whatever he has tried and tries to topple May, he utterly failed.

He is the wrong man at the wrong time to lead the LP and now it is overdue that he steps down and let Starmer take over. With Corbyn as leader the LP will suffer heavy losses in coming elections, with Starmer as leader of the LP the party can win. Maybe even form a govt led by Starmer, but with Corbyn, no way. He's as much politically finished as May is already. They both just drag on this Brexit deadlock. They can't solve it. But Starmer can, I am sure about that.

Christy42

Folkstonian wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

Fairly basic precondition and based on May's speech, one she did not accomodate.

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1085647444027662337?s=21

Just an absolute shambles right now

I believe that Corbyn should have gone to the meeting. However it shows that discussion in the UK has never understood the Irish situation when they give out to Corbyn for having terrorist sympathies. May is currently in government with the DUP and they never seem to cop that connection.

DOCARCH

Only chance of this ending with any sanity is if decision making is taken from government/executive and transferred to the house/MPs, which may happen next week (if Bercow facilitates).

May is totally boxed in! It appears any which way she turns from now on will be very problematic for her (....staying in power).

DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.

Peregrinus

I agree that there's an inertia factor here, stemming from the fact that no-deal is the default option and that May's government is criminally incompetent. But ultimately the government is accountable to Parliament. When people in Parliament start to work together to avert no deal, rather than to bring about the particular outcomes they variously prefer, if May is an obstacle to that they will do what they have to to get around her. I think if/when it becomes apparent that May really is not going to act to prevent a no-deal Brexit, with high-profile resignations from her cabinet over this issue. May has already lost ultra-Brexiters from cabinet; when they start to peel of on the other side as well her government is basically finished. The party can't mount a no-confidence vote in her, but there's always the men in grey suits who will have a little chat with her and then leave her alone with a revolver for 15 minutes.

PeadarCo

FrancieBrady wrote:

The reason the UK cannot leave the EU the way they want (with cake) is because the voice of northern Ireland is so strong and because the EU has listened and heard it. Agree to the terms, a backstop insuring the interests of Ireland and northern Ireland (laid down by SF at the very start of this, unlike FG) or leave with no deal.

SF are irrelevant in terms of Brexit they are not in power in the Dail not in power in Stormont and by not taking seats in Westminster can't influence things there. I don't have an issue per say with SF policy however I would advise you to listen to some of the debate in Westminster its scary how clueless elements are about NI. It would be nice that someone could confront it face on.
Just to clarify my comments stem from frustration with alot of MPs and how little their knowledge and attitude has changed since the vote and all that has happened.