Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Foghladh · 29-07-2019 07:30AM

An Claidheamh wrote: »

British Brexiters are so bankrupt of ideas that they just being childish with the Good Friday Agreement, such a whiff of desperation.

Jeepers, ended up reading the comments below.

Same old British stuff, a very sad group of people :

"Why can't them Éire join our commonwealth"

"Ireland caused their border, wanting their country back innit"

"up until now we were best friends....." (except for.... everything up to now)

(following Anti-Irish nonsense, patronising stuff, delusions...)"why them Paddies not like us, they are in the EU just to attack us"

"Varadkar is a foreigner, Ireland can't be listening to foreigners (sic except British ones)"

"they've overplayed their hand" (3 years now, like a slogan or something )

"EU tax, they need our market, banking loan, the IRA, they will get punished, German cars, etc"

"Moan, moan, moan, moan, moan, Rule Britannia"

It's actually rather transfixing, rather relieved that some of the commenters appreciated we despise them, their empire and aren't their "friends".

Varadkar "is a Republican extremist" that was my favourite.

That is surprising alright given that an online comments section is normally so balanced. Is it not a little silly to accuse them of being childish and then to proclaim that you despise them and aren't their friends?

McGiver · 29-07-2019 08:03AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

Opinion piece in tomorrow's Telegraph. Some weird mental gymnastics going on.

Disgusting propaganda. And the comments. Lies, fantasies and delusions. I don't know if these are paid trolls or actually people. If the latter then it's scary.

Leaving all criticism of the domestic policy aside, Varadkar has played the Brexit very well.

Stop moaning ffs · 29-07-2019 08:03AM

That was unexpected. People already asking why the money isn’t put to better use but this is still odd. Thought it was going to be glorious and so easy?
Apparently not

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1155589617569214465?s=21

Peregrinus · 29-07-2019 08:10AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

She is not hugely popular and has lost every election in Scotland. She is a media construct who flip flops over the issues and has sniffed out the knuckle dragging loyalist support in Scotland

There has only been one Scottish election since she took over as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and, in that election, the Tories under Davidson substantially increased their vote and nearly doubled their representation in the Scottish Parliament, from 15 seats to 31, with the result that (a) the SNP lost their majority, and (b) the Tories overtook the Labour Party to become the official opposition. If that's a loss, it's a loss a lot of parties would be thrilled to have.

Enzokk · 29-07-2019 08:19AM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That was unexpected. People already asking why the money isn’t put to better use but this is still odd. Thought it was going to be glorious and so easy?
Apparently not

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1155589617569214465?s=21

Here is the article, hopefully you will be able to enlarge the photo and read it.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAmTC8HXsAAE85i?format=jpg&name=large

The fear of Sir Ivan Rogers will be realized, we will walk into no-deal due to politicians not really understanding the impact. You can also see clearly that May knew how bad it was going to be so she was not really preparing for it, but Johnson may just be stupid enough to walk into it. If he convinces enough people that it is the way they will vote for it, and when they voted for it he will have to implement it.

A couple of stories on Dominic Cummings. Seems he wants to limit leaks from aides,

Dominic Cummings' 'one strike and you're out' ban on Cabinet leaks is leaked to Daily Telegraph

I wasn't able to read the whole article but it does make the point that the warning about leaks were leaked. This reminds me of the farce of Trump and the leaks as well. The photo in the article just makes him look weird, in a corner like he doesn't really belong. I fear there will be some polite revolt from the civil service against Johnson with Cummings at his side.

The second story is how he is even able to be an aide seeing as he was found to be in contempt of parliament by refusing to testify.

Boris Johnson’s key adviser must face sanctions, demand MPs

Prominent MPs on the committee investigating fake news and disinformation want Boris Johnson’s aide Dominic Cummings, who has been found in contempt of parliament, to face sanctions in his new role at the heart of government. These could include docking his salary, denying him a security pass and putting pressure on the prime minister to force him to give evidence to parliament.

Johnson’s decision to appoint Cummings as a key adviser outraged many MPs because it came less than four months after parliament unanimously passed a motion, tabled by the government, to censure him for failing to testify at the fake news inquiry.

This paragraph was telling for me and frightening,

In his new role at Downing Street Cummings appears to be getting Johnson on an election footing; the Conservative party Facebook page has fielded hundreds of ads since his appointment. Although they are spending relatively small amounts, the range of ads allow them to test voters’ responses and gather data on those who do interact with the advertisements.

So here we go again. I would not be surprised if the Cambridge Analytica successor is being used in this campaign as well.

Borderhopper · 29-07-2019 08:23AM

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

VinLieger · 29-07-2019 08:32AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Thats a contradictory argument, if the UK aren't serious about No Deal then how is the backstop a tactical mistake? Agreeing a time limit to stop the UK doing something they don't would be pointless.

Enzokk · 29-07-2019 08:35AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There has only been one Scottish election since she took over as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and, in that election, the Tories under Davidson substantially increased their vote and nearly doubled their representation in the Scottish Parliament, from 15 seats to 31, with the result that (a) the SNP lost their majority, and (b) the Tories overtook the Labour Party to become the official opposition. If that's a loss, it's a loss a lot of parties would be thrilled to have.

It is true that there has been one Scottish election, but there has been 2 Westminster elections and the European elections as well. It would be naive to think that her performance did not have some influence in voters minds when they went to the polls in those.

If you look at the results in those it is mixed at best. She did well in the 2017 election but you wonder if that was a response to the SNP surge from 2 years before and whether she still had momentum from the results in the 2016 Scottish elections. Since then her performance as leader has had time to be analyzed and the results in the election of the EU Parliament the Conservatives came 4th, behind the SNP, Brexit and the Lib Dems.

It will be interesting to see what the results are in the next election as she is not being helped by the Conservatives in the England, but at the same time she has not been vocal in opposition to their stance on Brexit.

Beechwoodspark · 29-07-2019 08:36AM

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Ruth Davidson sticking it to Boris by telling him she will not support no-deal Brexit.

Davidson is hugely popular and I doubt this is going down well in the Boris camp. Double trouble waiting for him when he visits Scotland next week.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/28/support-no-deal-brexit-scottish-ruth-davidson-boris-johnson

She’s not hugely popular in Scotland. The tories are going to be decimated there next time out.

Peregrinus · 29-07-2019 08:48AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

O'Brien has been of that view for some time. (In fact, I don't rembember him ever not being of that view, but that could be just my faulty memory.) And there are a couple of other Irish commentators who are also dubious about or sceptical of the backstop - Eoghan Harris leaps to mind.

But I don't know that I would say that this is a "developing narrative", in the sense of a trend of commentators changing their minds, moving from support of the backstop to criticism of it.

Nor, to be honest, do I anticipate much of a shift, at least in the short term. In a sense the Brexiters have done Varadkar a favour here, since it's abundantly clear that any compromise on the backstop is highly likely to result in a hard border. Requests for a time limit are, basically, requests to trust the UK, within the period of the time limit, to develop and commit to mechanisms that will be effective to avoid a hard border. But all the signals from Brexit-land for the past three years have made it very clear that they have no appetite for making the kind of choices needed to avoid a hard border; it would be madness to trust them to do so. Agreeing a time-limit on the backstop is basically agreeing that a hard border will be introduced after a stay of execution; nobody in Ireland would find that a remotely attractive option.

And, if anything, the position has become even clearer recently, with prominent Brexiters insisting that the backstop must be not merely time-limited but dropped completely, and with some going further and saying that, even if the backstop is dropped completely, the UK will still not agree to the Withdrawal Agreement. Such a stance removes any incentive at all to agree to any compromise on the backstop, since compromising will acheive nothing.

That's not to say that there might not be pressure on Varadkar after a no-deal Brexit, when the country is reeling under the economic shock that will result. People might then press for a weakening of the Irish position, not because they think the border can be kept open by other means, but because they think that trying to keep up pressure on the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee is not worth the economic pain involved.

Borderhopper · 29-07-2019 08:48AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Thats a contradictory argument, if the UK aren't serious about No Deal then how is the backstop a tactical mistake? Agreeing a time limit to stop the UK doing something they don't would be pointless.

With respect, it’s not a contradictory argument. Read it again. The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal. ‘In other words’ is my comment on it

VinLieger · 29-07-2019 08:50AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

With respect, it’s not a contradictory argument. Read it again. The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal. ‘In other words’ is my comment on it

Yes sorry i misread that part

First Up · 29-07-2019 08:56AM

brickster69 wrote:

Less than 3% of goods entering the EU get physically checked. Huge ramifications if one nations goods are singled out as opposed to others under WTO regs.

That doesn't mean that the other 97% are waved through. All goods entering the EU are checked for compliance and elaborate systems are in place to manage that electronically. UK traders have been exempt from those requirements for almost 50 years and now have to install them.

Besides, few goods enter the EU as part of fast-moving supply chains, where they move between EU and non-EU countries over a week or less. Those supply chains can only operate with free movement.

brickster69 wrote:

The WTO's job is to ensure the free flow of trade between nations.

The WTO's job is to ensure that trade is conducted in an orderly and rules based manner.

Peregrinus · 29-07-2019 08:59AM

Enzokk wrote: »

It is true that there has been one Scottish election, but there has been 2 Westminster elections and the European elections as well. It would be naive to think that her performance did not have some influence in voters minds when they went to the polls in those.

If you look at the results in those it is mixed at best. She did well in the 2017 election but you wonder if that was a response to the SNP surge from 2 years before and whether she still had momentum from the results in the 2016 Scottish elections. Since then her performance as leader has had time to be analyzed and the results in the election of the EU Parliament the Conservatives came 4th, behind the SNP, Brexit and the Lib Dems.

It will be interesting to see what the results are in the next election as she is not being helped by the Conservatives in the England, but at the same time she has not been vocal in opposition to their stance on Brexit.

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

Zubeneschamali · 29-07-2019 09:03AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Borderhopper wrote: »

Dan OBrien: The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal.

I don't think so, the French opposed an extension to try and force No Deal, since they think it will bring the UK back to the table in a position of weakness if not desperation.

A Dub in Glasgo · 29-07-2019 09:15AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There has only been one Scottish election since she took over as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and, in that election, the Tories under Davidson substantially increased their vote and nearly doubled their representation in the Scottish Parliament, from 15 seats to 31, with the result that (a) the SNP lost their majority, and (b) the Tories overtook the Labour Party to become the official opposition. If that's a loss, it's a loss a lot of parties would be thrilled to have.

Yes she has taken over Labour, she still lost the election and by some distance. The media have constructed her as a future First Minister of Scotland... just not going to happen. The Tories decry the AM electoral system in place for the Scottish Parliament as it allows the Green Party and the SNP to have a majority pro-independence parliament. They need to be reminded that they won the vast majority of their seats as part of the top up list, the same system they decry the Greens getting theirs.

The voting system in pace in Scotland was specifically designed to prevent one party getting an overall majority so the 2011 result for the SNP was an outlier and it is the only time one party won the devolved elections

Enzokk · 29-07-2019 09:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

What I don't know is how much local issues impact voters in national elections in Scotland. I am trying to put myself in their position and if I see on my TV at night, "Ruth Davidson, Leader of Scottish Conservatives", when I have to vote for a Conservative candidate in an election in Scotland I would think of her before I think of May or Johnson. So my view on this is entirely on what I suspect happens.

My comment on the surge from 2 years before was to do with the UK general election in 2017. During the 2017 general election the Conservatives lost seats yet in Scotland they increased their share. Are you willing to say that this was not due to Davidson but due to May? Did the fact that May proposed a tax on elder voters if they have dementia and having them pay for care particularly appeal to Scottish voters?

What is also clear is that when a party has been in charge for a while there is some fatigue that creeps in and any new leader that is fresh will seem like a good alternative. This surely played a role for the SNP during both the 2016 Scottish Elections and the subsequent 2017 general election. The difference between then and now is that people has had a chance to evaluate Ruth Davidson as a leader and seeing that most Scottish voters would like to remain in the EU the fact that Conservative MPs from Scotland are voting for Brexit and she is the leader of the party in Scotland will have an impact. That she has been quiet has not helped, party over country.

The argument on her influence on elections other than Scottish elections in nuanced. Yes she is not in control over candidates or the message, but to say she has no influence over those results is false as May didn't appear in the debate on the election in Scotland, but Davidson did. And if you credit her for that result you have to admit her part in other elections where her party did not do well in Scotland.

brickster69 · 29-07-2019 09:17AM

First Up wrote: »

That doesn't mean that the other 97% are waved through. All goods entering the EU are checked for compliance and elaborate systems are in place to manage that electronically. UK traders have been exempt from those requirements for almost 50 years and now have to install them.

True, but a large % of importers / exporters are already familiar with these systems as they currently use them with the rest of the world. Fair enough, some of these will trade solely with the EU and need to adapt to new procedures.

Saying that, they should have had enough time by now to have that in place.

Enzokk · 29-07-2019 09:18AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes she has taken over Labour, she still lost the election and by some distance. The media have constructed her as a future First Minister of Scotland... just not going to happen. The Tories decry the AM electoral system in place for the Scottish Parliament as it allows the Green Party and the SNP to have a majority pro-independence parliament. They need to be reminded that they won the vast majority of their seats as part of the top up list, the same system they decry the Greens getting theirs.

The voting system in pace in Scotland was specifically designed to prevent one party getting an overall majority so the 2011 result for the SNP was an outlier and it is the only time one party won the devolved elections

How many seats would the SNP have had in 2016 if FPTP was in operation? Surely with 40%-45% of the vote compared to 25% of the opposition means they would have had a massive majority.

A Dub in Glasgo · 29-07-2019 09:20AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

Davidson portrays the Conservative party in Scotland as not being the same as the Conservative party in the rest of the UK therefore all the campaign documents / leaflets for all elections has her face on the front and concentrating on saying no to a 2nd Scottish independence referendum. All the material is designed to compete with the SNP therefore it is very fair to look a the results in Scotland for the Tories and pin it on the 'leader' in Scotland

The media do this as well and Davidson used to work for BBC Scotland and uses her friendships/contacts in the media to get the message out that it is Ruth Davidsons Party

ruth-davidson-scottish-conservative-party-european-elections-201.jpg

Leroy42 · 29-07-2019 09:25AM

Did Dan give an alternative to the backstop.

Because on Brexit day the UK is no longer part of the EU and thus needs a border. The backstop is designed to enable them to leave but avoid a border.

It is 3 years since the ref and the UK have nothing to offer to solve the problem. But another 5 years, after they already got what they wanted, is going to work?

Brexiteers love telling everyone how negotiations work, but seemingly want the EU to drop all their demands prior to a future negotiation.

The border is a result of Brexit vote. 100% at the feet of the UK. Any avoidance of the border is entirely down to concessions by the EU to their own rules. UK will have given nothing.

This narrative that the UK are looking to avoid a border is wrong. They voted to create a border and the EU have tried to rescue NI from the consequences of that decision.

A Dub in Glasgo · 29-07-2019 09:32AM

Enzokk wrote: »

How many seats would the SNP have had in 2016 if FPTP was in operation? Surely with 40%-45% of the vote compared to 25% of the opposition means they would have had a massive majority.

The electoral system uses FPTP constituency votes topped with with the Additional Member portion. In the FPTP part, the seats were

SNP 59
Tory 7
LLib Dem 4
Labour 3

lawred2 · 29-07-2019 09:35AM

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

Dan O'Brien is a dose.

Did you mean "no one is NOT stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head."

Either way - that's not exactly a credible basis from which to set out a negotiation position is it? That you need to prepare and cater for the lunatic excesses of your counter negotiating party?

At the end of it all - while no deal Brexit is bad for Ireland - it's infinitely worse for the UK and the Tories are on record as saying even without a backstop they still wouldn't vote for the WA so why does Dan think Ireland and the EU should compromise everything for nothing in return?

What was his alternative?

Tell me how · 29-07-2019 09:36AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did Dan give an alternative to the backstop.

Because on Brexit day the UK is no longer part of the EU and thus needs a border. The backstop is designed to enable them to leave but avoid a border.

It is 3 years since the ref and the UK have nothing to offer to solve the problem. But another 5 years, after they already got what they wanted, is going to work?

Brexiteers love telling everyone how negotiations work, but seemingly want the EU to drop all their demands prior to a future negotiation.

The border is a result of Brexit vote. 100% at the feet of the UK. Any avoidance of the border is entirely down to concessions by the EU to their own rules. UK will have given nothing.

This narrative that the UK are looking to avoid a border is wrong. They voted to create a border and the EU have tried to rescue NI from the consequences of that decision.

Yes, but, you are writing that from a position and for people in a position who don't want Brexit because they see it ultimately will lead to acrimony, conflict, and trouble.

But Brexiteers simply want their sense of being top dog more than they fear any of these outcomes. So they don't care or want to convince someone who's responsible for what, they just want Brexit.

They told us from the very start. Brexit means Brexit and we thought they didn't understand the implications when actually they just didn't care.

Peregrinus · 29-07-2019 09:36AM

Enzokk wrote: »

What I don't know is how much local issues impact voters in national elections in Scotland. I am trying to put myself in their position and if I see on my TV at night, "Ruth Davidson, Leader of Scottish Conservatives", when I have to vote for a Conservative candidate in an election in Scotland I would think of her before I think of May or Johnson. So my view on this is entirely on what I suspect happens.

I don't think Scottish voters are so thick as to vote in an election primarily based on their perception of someone who isn't a candidate in the election, and cannot play any role in the government which will emerge from that election. I admit I have never lived in Scotland but I have lived in other democracies where there are separate national and regional/state elections, and generally the voters seem to have no difficult at all in distinguishing the issues and personalities that are relevant to the different elections.

Enzokk wrote: »

My comment on the surge from 2 years before was to do with the UK general election in 2017. During the 2017 general election the Conservatives lost seats yet in Scotland they increased their share. Are you willing to say that this was not due to Davidson but due to May? Did the fact that May proposed a tax on elder voters if they have dementia and having them pay for care particularly appeal to Scottish voters?

False dichotomy; it doesn't have to be due to either May or Davidson.

For the reasons already given I doubt that Davidson has much to do with the Tory success in Scotland in the 2017 general election. And, for reasons which are obvious, I also doubt that May had to do with it.

So what did? Well, I think it's notable that the swing to the Tories, 13.7%, almost exactly matched the swing away from the SNP, 13.1%. I think the factor was Brexit. Some former supporters of Scottish independence felt that it was a less attractive prospect if rump UK would be outside the EU, and so abandoned the SNP. But pro-EU unionists did not switch to the SNP; they prioritised the British union over the European Union. And of course it was not at that stage clear what a complete pig's breakfast May and the Tories were about to make of the Brexit project.

First Up · 29-07-2019 09:37AM

brickster69 wrote:

Saying that, they should have had enough time by now to have that in place.

We'll see.

IAmTheReign · 29-07-2019 09:38AM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever studied the UK's FIRs?

https://www.nats.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/UKFIRs2-1.png

Have you? Because if you had you'd know Shanwick is not UK airspace. It's international airspace and is controlled in a joint operation between Ireland and the UK. Shanwick is a contraction of Shannon and Prestwick in Scotland.

lawred2 · 29-07-2019 09:42AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think Scottish voters are so thick as to vote in an election primarily based on their perception of someone who isn't a candidate in the election, and cannot play any role in the government which will emerge from that election. I admit I have never lived in Scotland but I have lived in other democracies where there are separate national and regional/state elections, and generally the voters seem to have no difficult at all in distinguishing the issues and personalities that are relevant to the different elections.

False dichotomy; it doesn't have to be due to either May or Davidson.

For the reasons already given I doubt that Davidson has much to do with the Tory success in Scotland in the 2017 general election. And, for reasons which are obvious, I also doubt that May had to do with it.

So what did? Well, I think it's notable that the swing to the Tories, 13.7%, almost exactly matched the swing away from the SNP, 13.1%. I think the factor was Brexit. Some former supporters of Scottish independence felt that it was a less attractive prospect if rump UK would be outside the EU, and so abandoned the SNP. But pro-EU unionists did not switch to the SNP; they prioritised the British union over the European Union. And of course it was not at that stage clear what a complete pig's breakfast May and the Tories were about to make of the Brexit project.

Would find it very hard to believe that the above still holds given the utter disregard and disdain shown to Scotland since the Brexit vote..

Stop moaning ffs · 29-07-2019 09:46AM

Direct Rule to be implemented in no deal scenario.
So that’ll just be great

lawred2 · 29-07-2019 09:47AM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Direct Rule to be implemented in no deal scenario.
So that’ll just be great

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-northern-ireland-direct-rule-dominic-raab-boris-johnson-a9024801.html

And we're back 50 years. DUP will be dancing for joy and ensuring that Stormont never reconvenes.

Sickened

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments