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 XI (Please read OP before posting)

Quin_Dub

This is the eleventh incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread,

Same warnings etc still apply:

As we are approaching the critical end of March October 2019 period, please bear the following in mind before posting:
Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

lawred2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why they've achieved what the backstop was intended to achieve. No hard border

they've kicked the can down the road and given the green light for the DUP to depart from the agreement in four years' time..

how is that a 'backstop'? Unless and until?

LeinsterDub

lawred2 wrote: »

If it's as reported - then I'm seriously not impressed

Why they've achieved what the backstop was intended to achieve. No hard border

joe40

The DUP only represent 10 MPs out of over 600 and a tiny percentage of the electorate of the UK.
Why is their position given so much importance.

The GFA is one of the most successful peace agreements in the world in recent times and the DUP totally opposed it. (See the apoplectic Ruth Patterson video posted earlier)

If it was up to the DUP there would be no GFA.

If the HoC arithmetic is so tight that 10 votes will make a difference it will still be a very divided parliament in Britain.

lawred2

Russman wrote: »

That's what I thought, but Tony C mentions that cross community majority is seen as favourable for the DUB and simple majority seen as less favourable for them.
Maybe I'm just being stupid this morning, but I just can't reconcile that.

simple

cross community means a majority in both communities... But the DUP feel that they could engineer a majority in their own community to break from the agreement and it wouldn't matter a toss what themmuns voted for.

It's basically a unionist veto as far as I read it.

However a simple majority across NI would be near impossible for the DUP to engineer. And they know that.

J Mysterio

Wow... Check out these reports

https://twitter.com/dli_odoir/status/1184736716114006016

https://twitter.com/dli_odoir/status/1184736268544073729

Joe_ Public

Russman wrote: »

That's what I thought, but Tony C mentions that cross community majority is seen as favourable for the DUB and simple majority seen as less favourable for them.
Maybe I'm just being stupid this morning, but I just can't reconcile that.

I guess because cross community support would in theory be harder to achieve, either side could conceivably collapse the assembly to get their way. With a third of seats guaranteeing a majority might not be so achievable.

Russman

Professor Genius wrote: »

Cross community vote would mean both Nationalist and Unionist parties would need to agree to stay in after 4 years

That's what I thought, but Tony C mentions that cross community majority is seen as favourable for the DUB and simple majority seen as less favourable for them.
Maybe I'm just being stupid this morning, but I just can't reconcile that.

lawred2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Haven't seen said explicitly but if EU are signed up, as suggested, it would certainly imply it.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Presumably yes. I suspect this might be the bones of the arrangement that Johnson and Varadkar came to in Cheshire.

If it's as reported - then I'm seriously not impressed

J Mysterio

lawred2 wrote: »

Has the Irish government actually assented to that consent section?

Presumably yes. I suspect this might be the bones of the arrangement that Johnson and Varadkar came to in Cheshire.

Joe_ Public

lawred2 wrote: »

Has the Irish government actually assented to that consent section?

Haven't seen said explicitly but if EU are signed up, as suggested, it would certainly imply it.

lawred2

Has the Irish government actually assented to that consent section?

J Mysterio

Professor Genius wrote: »

Cross community vote would mean both Nationalist and Unionist parties would need to agree to stay in after 4 years

No. What's proposed is a simply majority to continue the arrangement after 4 years. Cross community support leads to an 8 year continuance.

is_that_so

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Not so certain as Foster pretty much took Connelly to task almost as soon as he made his original tweet. I suspect what is happening is that EU got a bit taken in by gov assurances they'd get dup in line. Bit naive if so, but seems likely explanation to me anyway.

EU are working on the deal Boris is bringing and it seems to tick their boxes. They don't care about the DUP. That's his problem.

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't think there would be much the EU could do if the UK Parliament as it's sovereign right, decided another way to resolve the border

That is why it is not worth trashing a deal to get a theoretical sign-up to no border ever ever ever, because once out, the UK can rip up any agreement any time they like.

This deal gives us no border for 6 years, and crushing economic consequences for NI if Unionists pull the plug after that. It'll do.

Joe_ Public

Hurrache wrote: »

I'd say what's highlighted is what happened. They slept on it/got harassed by their hardcore support base overnight and released their statement as the everyone was getting out of bed

Not so certain as Foster pretty much took Connelly to task almost as soon as he made his original tweet. I suspect what is happening is that EU got a bit taken in by gov assurances they'd get dup in line. Bit naive if so, but seems likely explanation to me anyway.

Eric Cartman

lobbylad wrote: »

So, under the rumoured deal, how would the following work out:

(a) I order something from amazon UK, shipped to my home, I get charged any excise/tariffs as UK is a non EU country

(b) I register a parcelmotel NI address, order on amazon UK, its shipped to the NI address, no excise as its internal UK, then its forwarded to Dublin, again no excise/tariffs as its across the NI/ROI border.

Seems the route of my parcel would allow me to avoid EU charges?

Most of your amazon orders are already shipped from spain , theyve already planned for this

LeinsterDub

lobbylad wrote: »

So, under the rumoured deal, how would the following work out:

(a) I order something from amazon UK, shipped to my home, I get charged any excise/tariffs as UK is a non EU country

(b) I register a parcelmotel NI address, order on amazon UK, its shipped to the NI address, no excise as its internal UK, then its forwarded to Dublin, again no excise/tariffs as its across the NI/ROI border.

Seems the route of my parcel would allow me to avoid EU charges?

It would have EU tariffs applied entering NI.

lobbylad

So, under the rumoured deal, how would the following work out:

(a) I order something from amazon UK, shipped to my home, I get charged any excise/tariffs as UK is a non EU country

(b) I register a parcelmotel NI address, order on amazon UK, its shipped to the NI address, no excise as its internal UK, then its forwarded to Dublin, again no excise/tariffs as its across the NI/ROI border.

Seems the route of my parcel would allow me to avoid EU charges?

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

I'd say what's highlighted is what happened. They slept on it/got harassed by their hardcore support base overnight and released their statement as the everyone was getting out of bed

Same as the May deal...remember Arlene looking like she had gone ten rounds on the steps of Stormont, pulling the rug from under Theresa.

Remember the deal done on the Irish Language act and LGBT rights but later reneged on?

I think they put these things out there, sniff the wind back home and then decide.

Strazdas

Hurrache wrote: »

I'd say what's highlighted is what happened. They slept on it/got harassed by their hardcore support base overnight and released their statement as the everyone was getting out of bed

Also, Foster may well have been inclined to agree to it but the hardliners like Wilson, Paisley and Dodds were having none of it once they realised what was in the text.

Hurrache

54and56 wrote: »

True but that's not what Tony reported.

"two senior EU sources say the main stumbling block to a deal has been removed with the DUP accepting the latest proposals on consent"

It's possible the DUP had agreed to it and then got cold feet but it's more likely someone jumped the gun, fed incorrect info to Tony and he went with it but in his defence he does seem to have checked it with several sources before publishing.

I'd say what's highlighted is what happened. They slept on it/got harassed by their hardcore support base overnight and released their statement as the everyone was getting out of bed

farmchoice

devnull wrote: »

Is it possible that the DUP backed out at the last minute to use their leverage to get a few billion more reasons to vote for the deal?

no and by now it should have become apparent that on this issue the DUP cannot be bought.
The reason the DUP exist is to protect the union, at the end of the day it is their only policy everything else they do is really only relevant in how it pertains to protecting and strengthening the union.
now its not a sophisticated view of protecting the union it doesn't take a long term view or anything like that. its as much about as keeping the Taigs down as any thing else, its about flying the flag.

this deal makes them look like they have capitulated and in effect it has weakened the union. over the course of 30 years it might possibly be the thing that saves it if used properly but the DUP wont see it like that.

Kiith

So if this deal is legit, it's good for the England, good for Ireland and bad for NI?

And is this not just kicking the border wall issue down the road and ensuring it happens all over again in 4 years time (and then 4 more etc...)?

Infini

Varta wrote: »

It seemed very obvious from the Newsnight piece and from other reports that I have seen and read that the writing is on the wall and that many unionists now accept it as inevitable. Scottish independence does not have the historical impetus that a UI has.

In all respects Brexit is the nail in the coffin for unionism as Arlene and co are for all intensive purposes, discredited, disgraced and corrupt and have been exposed as uncaring fools who put ideology and their unicorns before the wellbeing of NI.

People up there were happy with the union so long as their future prospects were good and secure but this deal kills investment as people have commented noones gonna invest in an area with such uncertain future prospects evwry 4 years and a UI is the only way for NI to escape both that and the political instability of the UK. If scottish independence happens then the union is dead to rights.

Robert McGrath

Hurrache wrote: »

The EU are dealing with Johnson and his negotiators, not the DUP. If the EU and journalists are being told by the EU and the British that this potential deal is something they can work with, then they have to take their word.

Yep. I can’t help feeling this is the UK setting the DUP up as the public obstacles to a deal that the UK govt don’t really want anyway

listermint

54and56 wrote: »

True but that's not what Tony reported.

"two senior EU sources say the main stumbling block to a deal has been removed with the DUP accepting the latest proposals on consent"

It's possible the DUP had agreed to it and then got cold feet but it's more likely someone jumped the gun, fed incorrect info to Tony and he went with it but in his defence he does seem to have checked it with several sources before publishing.

And the EU get their information from the British.

So this was already addressed the the post you quoted.

54and56

Hurrache wrote: »

The EU are dealing with Johnson and his negotiators, not the DUP. If the EU and journalists are being told by the EU and the British that this potential deal is something they can work with, then they have to take their word.

True but that's not what Tony reported.

"two senior EU sources say the main stumbling block to a deal has been removed with the DUP accepting the latest proposals on consent"

It's possible the DUP had agreed to it and then got cold feet but it's more likely someone jumped the gun, fed incorrect info to Tony and he went with it but in his defence he does seem to have checked it with several sources before publishing.

devnull

Varta wrote: »

Because far too many 'interviewers' in our media are simply glorified DJs and don't have the required knowledge to question people/things properly.

Indeed, often people just have a view, air that view in public and reporters take it as being true and being gospel, rather than fact checking it or trying to validate the claims that are made.

Unfortunately you see it all of the time, some of it is due to lazy journalism, some of it is down to people just being too trusting and other times it's down to reporters misleading on purpose for an agenda.

Varta

prunudo wrote: »

And unchallenged too. Why are the media here so afraid to call out unionist views or statements that they claim are fact. And the media in the UK aren't much better calling out bs from brexiteers either.

Because far too many 'interviewers' in our media are simply glorified DJs and don't have the required knowledge to question people/things properly.

Hurrache

54and56 wrote: »

Looks like Tony's 4 sources confirming the DUP were onside with the proposed deal were not as well informed as he believed they were.

The EU are dealing with Johnson and his negotiators, not the DUP. If the EU and journalists are being told by the EU and the British that this potential deal is something they can work with, then they have to take their word.