Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali · 10-09-2019 10:18AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With Parliament suspended what happens now in practical terms does anyone know?

Johnson goes to Brussels for the summit on the 17th/18th. He will propose either:

1) Nonsense which has already been shot down, just as a performance to look as if he is trying

or:

2) May's deal with some lipstick on it, perhaps taking out the backstop and replacing it with the all new NI only Ackbay Opstay.

If 1), the EU send him packing. If 2), the EU say fine, get it through Westminster and you're out.

Boris brings whichever proposal to Westminster, where it is rejected.

Faced with the Benn Act, Johnson will launch a court case arguing that the law is invalid because of something or other, perhaps Bercow's ruling that it did not need Queen's consent.

The opposition will not have time to wait for a ruling, so they'll seize control again, win a VoNC. Corbyn will put himself forward as PM and be rejected. After a huddle, some neutral like Ken Clarke will be put forward and get a majority. The new PM will request an extension to January.

The EU will say no, if you want an extension, here is 12 months, take it or leave it. The caretaker PM is obliged to bring that to Parliament and it will be accepted.

Then an election, a minority coalition, 2nd referendum, Brexit cancelled.

VinLieger · 10-09-2019 10:18AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Jeffrey Donaldson on with Pat Kenny now.

Making stuff up as usual, love they now have coined the term "UK single market" to try and legitimise their idiocy by conflating it with the EU single market.
Also choosing to completely ignore the vast vast funding NI get from the EU that once stopped will kill jobs across the country even if they don't have a sea border with the rest of the UK.

gmisk · 10-09-2019 10:19AM

Enzokk wrote: »

I think Labour position is very clear. The only way out of Brexit is a referendum. If parliament revokes article 50 without a referendum people like Farage will have a lot of firepower to galvanize voters and you will see angry scenes on the street.

So Labour is offering this referendum, but to ensure it is fair they will negotiate a deal with the EU then put this up to the people against Remain. This way people know what they are voting for, A or B, not A or B with 10 different meanings of B.

The Tories are trying to muddy the water of Labour's position, but for me it makes rational sense and is the clearest and the most obvious way out of this mess.

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

99problems1 · 10-09-2019 10:21AM

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

Zubeneschamali · 10-09-2019 10:22AM

gmisk wrote: »

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

Yes.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 10:22AM

careless sherpa wrote: »

The political representatives of unionism have been central to the Brexit story. Right from the DUP dodgy adverts, being in a supply and confidence agreement with the Tory government, to scuppering the WA. They have painted themselves into a corner so not much point in crying 'crocodile' tears

CelticRambler wrote: »

The difference is that the Irish Sea is a border, a real one, already there and working effectively. Moreover, the Unionists already use it as justification for not aligning themselves with the UK when it suits them, for example in the matter of abortion & same-sex marriage legislation ... or indeed their cattle.

In practical terms, it wouldn't change anything for Unionists were that same border to be "beefed up" a bit, especially if that was done using the many and varied unobtrusive "technological solutions" that Brexiters tell us are available for such a purpose.

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

Charles Babbage · 10-09-2019 10:29AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

Not true. The backstop will stabilise NI and delay a United Ireland. That is why the Irish government wants it.

prawnsambo · 10-09-2019 10:31AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

The strongest chance of a UI (and the polls support this) are in the case of a hard brexit. That's absolutely unarguable. So anything that steps back from that will actually mitigate that possibility.

A border in the Irish Sea, continues the status quo for the foreseeable future.

gmisk · 10-09-2019 10:32AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes.

That clearly hasnt filtered through...see post below mine from someone.
They are falling between two stools IMO.
If I was in UK I would 100% be voting lib dem.

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

lawred2 · 10-09-2019 10:32AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I understand that the DUP have behaved abominably as regards same sex marriage and abortion (which hopefully will be settled once and for all by October 22nd), and have implemented a have their cake and eat it approach on other issues, and they were absolute idiots to support Brexit, but that's not the point.

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

Deep down, I think a lot of people in the Republic see it as such or hope it is such too.

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

The opposite is the case. An affluent stable NI will put off any push for a UI.

Leroy42 · 10-09-2019 10:36AM

hillbhoy16, you seem to be missing the most salient point in all of this. It is the UK that will make the final decision on NI, not ROI. We, and the EU, are looking for the best and least disruptive outcome from the UK decision to leave the EU.

That forces a choice in relation to NI. Whilst it is clear that little actual time or reflection was given to this very serious issue prior to the ref, the outcome of vote means that the current operational dynamics of NI in relation to both ROI and the UK must change.

How that changes is entirely up to the UK. Up until now, DUP have been driving the direction of the way NI will be treated, but since Johnson came to PM it appears, and that is all it is at the moment appears, that NI will not be held as closely to the UK as previously.

But that is the price of operating within a union to which you have little say or little real power. Ironically it is one of the main reasons that Brexiteers want to leave the EU, although in their case it is a perceived lack of sovereignty rather than a real one. But in NI it is very real, they are fully and completely controlled by the wishes as the parliament to which they have little say.

So whilst it may be galling to see that the UK may be turning to accept the backstop, wouldn't they accept it as the wish of the UK, to which they are part?

Professor Moriarty · 10-09-2019 10:41AM

Arlene Foster travelling to London today to meet with Johnson. Probably to chat about cricket and the RWC.

endabob1 · 10-09-2019 10:41AM

gmisk wrote: »

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

99problems1 wrote: »

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

gmisk wrote: »

That clearly hasnt filtered through...see post below mine from someone.
They are falling between two stools IMO.
If I was in UK I would 100% be voting lib dem.

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

It's been repeatedly said in recent days that Labour will have another referendum in their manifesto between whatever deal is on the table and remain. Whether they campaign for remain or not is still up in the air, I think there will be a repeat of 2016 where no whip was in place and MP's campaigned on whichever side they felt most comfortable

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45640548

That said I will vote Lib Dem as they have a better chance in my constituency and I believe they have had a better more consistent position

Zubeneschamali · 10-09-2019 10:42AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Arlene Foster travelling to London today to meet with Johnson. Probably to chat about cricket and the RWC.

And just how many billion it'll cost Johnson for her to drop her "principled" objection to an NI backstop.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 10:48AM

lawred2 wrote: »

The opposite is the case. An affluent stable NI will put off any push for a UI.

It's not really a matter of economics though, it's a matter of identity, and any change in situation which damages nationalists practical ability to feel Irish or unionists' practical ability to feel British damages stability.

We all know that a hard border damages the practical ability of nationalists to feel Irish.

What I'm saying is that any change to the situation as regards crossing from NI to Britain does similar as regards unionists' practical ability to feel British.

Now people might say that the hard border in Ireland would be more disruptive because its a land crossing wheres NI to Britain is a sea crossing, but an NI only backstop does change the material circumstances of NI in relation to Britain, against the will of unionists, and I don't think that's a particularly good thing.

Professor Moriarty · 10-09-2019 10:49AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And just how many billion it'll cost Johnson for her to drop her "principled" objection to an NI backstop.

Except they no longer have the Tories by the proverbials. All they can do now is beg and plead.

CelticRambler · 10-09-2019 10:50AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think it's quite fair to understand that Unionists see a customs border being put up in their own country as the thin end of the wedge towards pushing the North into a united Ireland.

...

But I don't think that's a good basis on which to edge closer to a united Ireland.

Brexit was never proposed by anyone in the Republic or in Northern Ireland as a way to "edge closer to a unite Ireland", but a consequence of voting for - and enacting - Brexit was always going to be the unresolvable question of where to draw a line between the UKofGB&NI and the EU.

Right at the beginning, this was predicted to be a major headache for the UK government. Those predictions were translated into warnings as the campaign wore on. Despite that, the DUP didn't just support the Leave vote in NI, but actively campaigned for Brexit on "the mainland".

In the same way that Theresa May miscalculated her General Election bid in 2017, and in the same way that Johnson-Cummings miscalculated their prorogation gambit, the DUP miscalculated when they based their strategy on a hard-core relationship with Leave.

If they end up with a border between their country and the one next door (some people still seem to have trouble accepting that NI is not part of GB), then that's a wedge that they campaigned for and any consequences arising from its placement are due to their political blunder.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 10:52AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

hillbhoy16, you seem to be missing the most salient point in all of this. It is the UK that will make the final decision on NI, not ROI. We, and the EU, are looking for the best and least disruptive outcome from the UK decision to leave the EU.

That forces a choice in relation to NI. Whilst it is clear that little actual time or reflection was given to this very serious issue prior to the ref, the outcome of vote means that the current operational dynamics of NI in relation to both ROI and the UK must change.

How that changes is entirely up to the UK. Up until now, DUP have been driving the direction of the way NI will be treated, but since Johnson came to PM it appears, and that is all it is at the moment appears, that NI will not be held as closely to the UK as previously.

But that is the price of operating within a union to which you have little say or little real power. Ironically it is one of the main reasons that Brexiteers want to leave the EU, although in their case it is a perceived lack of sovereignty rather than a real one. But in NI it is very real, they are fully and completely controlled by the wishes as the parliament to which they have little say.

So whilst it may be galling to see that the UK may be turning to accept the backstop, wouldn't they accept it as the wish of the UK, to which they are part?

Well Andrew Bridgen did briefly tag on to the possibility of a referendum in NI to decide on an NI only backstop, which has been floated for some time by the likes of Dan O'Brien.

I think Bridgen is a buffoon, but it was a rare moment of clarity on his part.

It ain't gonna happen though, is it.

Leroy42 · 10-09-2019 10:54AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's not really a matter of economics though, it's a matter of identity, and any change in situation which damages nationalists practical ability to feel Irish or unionists' practical ability to feel British damages stability.

We all know that a hard border damages the practical ability of nationalists to feel Irish.

What I'm saying is that any change to the situation as regards crossing from NI to Britain does similar as regards unionists' practical ability to feel British.

Now people might say that the hard border in Ireland would be more disruptive because its a land crossing wheres NI to Britain is a sea crossing, but an NI only backstop does change the material circumstances of NI in relation to Britain, against the will of unionists, and I don't think that's a particularly good thing.

The core issue is that Brexit means that it must be one or the other. It is terrible that that is the case, but that is how it is. The UK wants to leave the EU and that fundamentally changes the current situation with regards to UK/NI/ROI.

They have hummed and hawwed for three years trying to come to a solution which means nothing has to change, but everyone accepts that it is not possible based on the UK leaving.

So the only consideration is which is the least damaging to NI as a whole. Of course identity is a major factor, and I agree with you points about a sea border being the same as a land border to the DUP and others, but the alternative is an actual land border.

You are making it out as if their is another way. And I say again, whichever direction or option is gone for it will entirely on the basis of what the UK wants, or at least accepted.

Leroy42 · 10-09-2019 10:57AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Well Andrew Bridgen did briefly tag on to the possibility of a referendum in NI to decide on an NI only backstop, which has been floated for some time by the likes of Dan O'Brien.

I think Bridgen is a buffoon, but it was a rare moment of clarity on his part.

It ain't gonna happen though, is it.

Based on all previous evidence, this is little more than Bridgen being told this is the latest wheeze to try to ensure a hard BRexit. If that means getting rid of NI, which is what is is basically saying but dressing it up as a ref to avoid having to accept that it is a natural consequence of his desire for Brexit.

Or maybe it is a genuine feeling from him that people that will be effected by Brexit should have another say on the planned outcome. But I doubt it.

trellheim · 10-09-2019 10:58AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Not true. The backstop will stabilise NI and delay a United Ireland. That is why the Irish government wants it.

Do you not think you are conflating three or four different things here and coming up with something completely new ?

Backstop is to ensure status quo nothing more absent any alternative arrangement

If you believe the rest of what you say then link me to some policy statement on that confirming it.

Zubeneschamali · 10-09-2019 11:03AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or maybe it is a genuine feeling from him that people that will be effected by Brexit should have another say on the planned outcome.

Since the polls say NI would vote for an NI only backstop, that would get them around the optics of stabbing the DUP in the back to save Brexit.

But it can't happen before Oct. 31st so it doesn't really help Johnson.

Likewise the idea of getting Stormont to agree to the NI backstop - no way is Stormont going to be up and running before Oct 31st.

bilston · 10-09-2019 11:03AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Except they no longer have the Tories by the proverbials. All they can do now is beg and plead.

While this is true and the HoC could certainly push through a deal with a NI only backstop with the DUP thrown under the bus. The DUP, unfortunately, still have the power to mobilise Loyalist discontent, much like Sinn Fein can within the Nationalist/Republican community.

Getting the DUP to support, or at least not vehemently oppose any agreement would be very useful in avoiding any trouble from the Loyalist community over what would effectively be a total climbdown by the Tories.

Enzokk · 10-09-2019 11:05AM

gmisk wrote: »

I really dont think it is to me. Have they explicitly said they want another referendum?

On the 19th July,

Labour is finally backing a second referendum. Is it too little, too late?

The confusion, manufactured by the Tories and press, has come in with the policy Labour would follow. They are not taking a position but will try to ensure people have clear options that they will vote on. For Brexiters this is obviously scandalous because in their minds if you believe enough and tackle the problem with energy and determination it will be solved.

It is no surprise the party of deceit is happy with sowing doubts on the opposition policies.

99problems1 wrote: »

Labour just don't want no deal, they want brexit.

I think labour are being seen as the "saviours" for the remainers but they want brexit themselves.

There are elements in Labour that wanted to leave the EU, but I think it has slowly dawned on them that Brexit in any form will be a disaster for the country, which in turn will make it harder for them to implement their policies. You still have people in power who believe in Brexit, but the likes of McCluskey is very much in the minority and once he sees the projections that made May pull back from the edge he will do the same.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 11:05AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Brexit was never proposed by anyone in the Republic or in Northern Ireland as a way to "edge closer to a unite Ireland", but a consequence of voting for - and enacting - Brexit was always going to be the unresolvable question of where to draw a line between the UKofGB&NI and the EU.

Right at the beginning, this was predicted to be a major headache for the UK government. Those predictions were translated into warnings as the campaign wore on. Despite that, the DUP didn't just support the Leave vote in NI, but actively campaigned for Brexit on "the mainland".

In the same way that Theresa May miscalculated her General Election bid in 2017, and in the same way that Johnson-Cummings miscalculated their prorogation gambit, the DUP miscalculated when they based their strategy on a hard-core relationship with Leave.

If they end up with a border between their country and the one next door (some people still seem to have trouble accepting that NI is not part of GB), then that's a wedge that they campaigned for and any consequences arising from its placement are due to their political blunder.

I can take the fact that I despise the DUP, see that they were stupid in their strategising, and leave it to one side.

On the issue of their opposition to the NI only backstop, I can see their point, however - it isn't a whole lot different from the SNP objecting at being taken out of the EU against the will of the Scottish people.

Great Britain is a geographical term, not a nation state. Northern Ireland is very much part of the UK, which is the nation state of which it is a constituent part.

The whole point of the Good Friday Agreement was to make it possible for two identities to share one land - that to those who consider themselves Irish should be able to do so in a practical way, with no border on the island of Ireland, while those who identify as British, or, if you want to be pedantic about United Kingdomish, can continue to do so.

The DUP are not actually the problem here. The problem is the hard Brexiteers, who continue to insist on "solutions" that nobody campaigned for and nobody voted for.

Zubeneschamali · 10-09-2019 11:08AM

trellheim wrote: »

Backstop is to ensure status quo nothing more absent any alternative arrangement

Exactly, and the status quo is not a United Ireland, and not heading that way. The Backstop will ensure this continues.

No backstop means a hard border. NI nationalists will immediately feel cut off from Ireland and active movement towards a United Ireland will restart.

The growing non-aligned group in NI who are neither nationalist nor unionist still know which side of their bread is buttered, and EU membership south of the Border may start looking good as the No-Deal Brexit recession bites.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 11:09AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The core issue is that Brexit means that it must be one or the other. It is terrible that that is the case, but that is how it is. The UK wants to leave the EU and that fundamentally changes the current situation with regards to UK/NI/ROI.

They have hummed and hawwed for three years trying to come to a solution which means nothing has to change, but everyone accepts that it is not possible based on the UK leaving.

So the only consideration is which is the least damaging to NI as a whole. Of course identity is a major factor, and I agree with you points about a sea border being the same as a land border to the DUP and others, but the alternative is an actual land border.

You are making it out as if their is another way. And I say again, whichever direction or option is gone for it will entirely on the basis of what the UK wants, or at least accepted.

Keeping the current situation while the UK leaves the EU is possible though.

It just requires a change of UK government and the immediate abandonment of the red lines.

hill16bhoy · 10-09-2019 11:12AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Not true. The backstop will stabilise NI and delay a United Ireland. That is why the Irish government wants it.

An all-UK backstop would stabilise NI, because it would guarantee the continuation of the present circumstances both north-south and east-west.

But an NI-only backstop changes the east-west circumstances.

Leroy42 · 10-09-2019 11:14AM

bilston wrote: »

While this is true and the HoC could certainly push through a deal with a NI only backstop with the DUP thrown under the bus. The DUP, unfortunately, still have the power to mobilise Loyalist discontent, much like Sinn Fein can within the Nationalist/Republican community.

Getting the DUP to support, or at least not vehemently oppose any agreement would be very useful in avoiding any trouble from the Loyalist community over what would effectively be a total climbdown by the Tories.

The DUP are in a bind though. If the HoC passes the WA, with whatever flavour of the backstop, how can they claim to be part of the UK and respect the will of the people and at the same time decry the UK?

Their mantra that NI must exit on the same terms is not based on anything expect their own wishes and they can't complain if the UK, as a while, decides something else.

It is the same for Scotland. They either accept Brexit outcome or the alternative is to leave the UK.

Leroy42 · 10-09-2019 11:18AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

An all-UK backstop would stabilise NI, because it would guarantee the continuation of the present circumstances both north-south and east-west.

But an NI-only backstop changes the east-west circumstances.

True, but the Brexiteers and the Tory party don't want any backstop. It has become clear that it is either the NI only or the UK wide backstop or else no deal at all.

Since Brexit has always really been about England, it is no surprise if they opt to go with NI only backstop.

Whilst I have sympathy for their situation, anyone in NI should have seen this coming as soon as the Brexit nonsense started And tbf, the majority of people in NI voted to remain as they understood the implications.

The DUP were always on a temporary position of power. They hoped it would be enough to get through an agreement but circumstances have changed and their position of power has gone. They have as much say in the direction of Brexit now as Change UK (or whatever they are called)

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments