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 XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but 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
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Reports coming out of the dropping of level playing field guarantees from TM deal within the updated deal

The more one digs, the more it seems the EU did very much cave in quite significantly to Johnson.

I hope that they don't vote for this WA because it seems very much like the EU are given far too much. Far more than they would if Ireland were to leave.

What is the justification for dropping the LPF guarantee when we all know the UK intends to set up in direct competition with the EU?

I suspect the EU are taking the attitude that if the UK was to try and set itself up as a hostile competitor to the EU in future, there's not much they can do to prevent this and there is nothing they can legally do to physically stop Britain "going rogue".

But if the UK was to go down this route, there would be many negative consequences.

liamtech

briany wrote: »

Of course a few Loyalist headers would kick off if there were a sea border, but these people would not be operating in a vacuum. In order for their actions to be sustained, they would need a mandate from more moderate Loyalists/Unionists who are disgruntled due to feeling the pinch from the new arrangement. If the arrangement turns out to actually be fine, then their cause peters out in short order.

Again i agree, i wanna make that clear - the head bangers are already kicking off even now (see Jamie Bryson et al) - and yes a lot will depend on what moderate average Unionists decide

But there are precedents in NI for headbangers inciting large tracts of the Unionist community - in all honesty this is the community that put the peace process on the line so they could march down a catholic road (their traditional route)

And the DUP are certainly the type of party that tend not to back down. remember it was their actions that effectively collapsed Power sharing

RHI comes to light - Foster refuses to back down
Vote in assembly for her to stand aside, passes with 52% me thinks - VETO-ED by DUP
Vote against the speaker of the house for being clearly impartial - hes DUP - vote passes against him - VETO-ED by DUP

My point is the DUP are the biggest party in northern irish unionism - barring a major shift that we cant predict they are likely to be the biggest Unionist block moving forward - if we are depending on them to be 'Pragmatic' - - not a great place to be guys

briany

liamtech wrote: »

Again i agree, i wanna make that clear - the head bangers are already kicking off even now (see Jamie Bryson et al) - and yes a lot will depend on what moderate average Unionists decide

But there are precedents in NI for headbangers inciting large tracts of the Unionist community - in all honesty this is the community that put the peace process on the line so they could march down a catholic road (their traditional route)

And the DUP are certainly the type of party that tend not to back down. remember it was their actions that effectively collapsed Power sharing
RHI comes to light - Foster refuses to back down

Vote in assembly for her to stand aside, passes with 52% me thinks - VETO-ED by DUP

Vote against the speaker of the house for being clearly impartial - hes DUP - vote passes against him - VETO-ED by DUP

My point is the DUP are the biggest party in northern irish unionism - barring a major shift that we cant predict they are likely to be the biggest Unionist block moving forward - if we are depending on them to be 'Pragmatic' - - not a great place to be guys

At some point, irrationality meets hard reality. Bryson can say what he likes, I guess, but if Loyalism oversteps its mark and kicks off over what the rest of the world regarded as a reasonable and functional arrangement (given the circumstances), they run the risk of total political isolation, even from the Conservative & Unionist party. They run the risk of internal division as well where some Loyalists are condemning the actions of others ones. NI Loyalism has before shown a total lack of self-awareness in protests. Who could forget the Holy Cross dispute where urine was being flung at small, scared children trying to make their way to school? It's quite easy to envision Loyalist headbangers doing something that no politician or respectable person could defend, and at this point that community self-regulates itself. This is what I'm talking about when I say the crazies still need a mandate.

CelticRambler

liamtech wrote: »

However the main problem with your opinion is that its far to black and white

But the situation is black and white: Brexit is a universally bad idea, based on the result of a non-binding referendum, won on the back of illegal campaign practices, promoting unfounded allegations and deliberate misinformation. Three years later, despite the "best" efforts of two Tory governments propped up by the DUP, there is no clear path to Brexit.

The way to "fix" this would be to scrap the whole exercise and, if "the will of the people" is really as important to the Tories and the Brexit Party as it's been made out to be, a second referendum can be put to the people in a binding referendum, run according to best-practice rules and with a properly defined proposal put to the vote.

Unfortunately, the chance of this happening seems infinitely remote, so we on the EU side are left to make our own arrangements.

liamtech wrote: »

the Unionists red lines have been breached

Not our problem - we didn't draw them; and when campaigning, they ignored our warnings that this would be a problematic issue if the UK voted Leave.

liamtech wrote: »

very quickly Northern Ireland will deteriorate. Just as they did during Sunningdale, they could completely cripple Northern Ireland with a general strike. There may be millitant groups that will seek to take advantage of that.

Or not. Probably not.

If the Scots are saying that they would like the arrangement that's been offered to NI, then what's the problem? Why should the DUP's red lines be respected more than, for example, the Remain-voting residents of the City of London?

mayo.mick

Duane Dibbley wrote: »

How do you all think the DUP will fair in a GE

Hopefully they get annihilated, but doubtful that will happen.

FrancieBrady

72% would back Remain in a new referendum in NI according to a Sunday Times poll.

The DUP are between a rock and a hard place and it isn't getting any softer.

Strazdas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

72% would back Remain in a new referendum in NI according to a Sunday Times poll.

The DUP are between a rock and a hard place and it isn't getting any softer.

Foster said yesterday that the deal was "terrible for Northern Ireland", but she really means terrible for Unionism.

Elephant in the room is that NI's interests and the DUP's interests are very different.

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

Foster said yesterday that the deal was "terrible for Northern Ireland", but she really means terrible for Unionism.

Elephant in the room is that NI's interests and the DUP's interests are very different.

Not quite. The deal only covers Northern Ireland for goods. Services are excluded so the sort of people NI needs more of will be further incentivised to relocate to the Republic or elsewhere in the EU.

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

Foster said yesterday that the deal was "terrible for Northern Ireland", but she really means terrible for Unionism.

Elephant in the room is that NI's interests and the DUP's interests are very different.

And even then, it's only a poor deal for Unionism if it threatened to cause an economic downturn for the region that was worse than the rest of the UK. Make no mistake about it, Unionism needs to be able to make the argument that NI is economically better off in the UK.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

And even then, it's only a poor deal for Unionism if it threatened to cause an economic downturn for the region that was worse than the rest of the UK. Make no mistake about it, Unionism needs to be able to make the argument that NI is economically better off in the UK.

They made a terrible error campaigning for Brexit in the first place. There was no need to do it : their sister party, the Conservatives, were pro-Remain.

An Ciarraioch

FrancieBrady wrote: »

72% would back Remain in a new referendum in NI according to a Sunday Times poll.

The DUP are between a rock and a hard place and it isn't getting any softer.

Especially with the UUP pivoting to a permanent customs union, or remain if that should prove impossible.

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

They made a terrible error campaigning for Brexit in the first place. There was no need to do it : their sister party, the Conservatives, were pro-Remain.

Yeah, there was no need to do it, but given their ideology, I can see why they did. As was already pointed out, it was a free shot at putting a barrier between NI and the Republic. Too delectable an opportunity for the DUP to pass up.

CelticRambler

briany wrote: »

As was already pointed out, it was a free shot at putting a barrier between NI and the Republic.

Only it wasn't free: they didn't read the small print, and they're paying the price for it now.

A bit like the 17.4m across the water too ...

briany

CelticRambler wrote: »

Only it wasn't free: they didn't read the small print, and they're paying the price for it now.

A bit like the 17.4m across the water too ...

If by small print you mean they didn't stop to consider all the potential outcomes, then yeah I agree.

Brexiteers don't do small print, really. They prefer capitalisation for emphasis.

jimmycrackcorm

I get the distinct impression that now the DUP have had their eyes opened to reality. However, I think that their motivation to support a GE is in the vain hope that they can go back to 2017 and wield the same influence.
This is why they harp on about being still important for parlimentary arithmetic. Surely their inability to have anything but a narrow focus on "the precious union" means this is their only aim. Their goal is to follow they mission statement which is the single word: NO.

I hugely doubt that they can get in that position again following a GE. With the current deal, it's unlikely that they can get the NI bits rescinded and they won't get a UK wide deal like May's was. This current deal is the one that is going to get the UK out. The train has already left the station despite looking forward to some breakdowns and line diversions along the route.

CelticRambler

In the meantime, focusing again on the GB side of the UK ...

... I really don't understand why Labour isn't supporting the idea of a GNU/caretaker PM. It seems evident that they need time to let the full effect of Johnson's failures to hit home, to allow his dodgy funding of WotzErName's company to be investigated, and for the full detail of the impact assessments to come to light. It also seems evident that fighting an election as a proxy referendum is a very risky move, so there's no good reason to support one until the Brexit question has been resolved, either by having a real referendum first, or by kicking it well down the road with, for example, a two-year extension and a pledge to set up an all-party commission to take Brexit off the political playing field for the immediate future.

Has anyone seen or read anything that explains why Corbyn hasn't/won't support this idea?

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

In the meantime, focusing again on the GB side of the UK ...

... I really don't understand why Labour isn't supporting the idea of a GNU/caretaker PM. It seems evident that they need time to let the full effect of Johnson's failures to hit home, to allow his dodgy funding of WotzErName's company to be investigated, and for the full detail of the impact assessments to come to light. It also seems evident that fighting an election as a proxy referendum is a very risky move, so there's no good reason to support one until the Brexit question has been resolved, either by having a real referendum first, or by kicking it well down the road with, for example, a two-year extension and a pledge to set up an all-party commission to take Brexit off the political playing field for the immediate future.

Has anyone seen or read anything that explains why Corbyn hasn't/won't support this idea?

It is quite simple - Corbyn wants to be PM - the other opposition parties and the renegade Tories do not want him to be PM in any circumstances. For some it is personal, for more it is party political, and others it is just fundamental politics - he is too far left.

A GNU would be able to solve the whole Brexit fiasco by having a 2nd ref first, then having a GE. They could also have a full Royal Commission into every aspect of Brexit, inc the dodgy funding, the criminal behaviour of the Leave.EU campaign, the level of deliberate misinformation, etc. etc. They do not need a GE before May 2022, so why hold one in the middle of a crisis?

prawnsambo

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is quite simple - Corbyn wants to be PM - the other opposition parties and the renegade Tories do not want him to be PM in any circumstances. For some it is personal, for more it is party political, and others it is just fundamental politics - he is too far left.

A GNU would be able to solve the whole Brexit fiasco by having a 2nd ref first, then having a GE. They could also have a full Royal Commission into every aspect of Brexit, inc the dodgy funding, the criminal behaviour of the Leave.EU campaign, the level of deliberate misinformation, etc. etc. They do not need a GE before May 2022, so why hold one in the middle of a crisis?

Labour don't want a GNU either. They want a minority government supported by the other opposition parties. Which is never going to happen since the rebel Tories would never do that.

Sam Russell

prawnsambo wrote: »

Labour don't want a GNU either. They want a minority government supported by the other opposition parties. Which is never going to happen since the rebel Tories would never do that.

That is what I said. Corbyn for PM.

CelticRambler

Sam Russell wrote: »

A GNU would be able to solve the whole Brexit fiasco by having a 2nd ref first, then having a GE. They could also have a full Royal Commission into every aspect of Brexit, inc the dodgy funding, the criminal behaviour of the Leave.EU campaign, the level of deliberate misinformation, etc. etc. They do not need a GE before May 2022, so why hold one in the middle of a crisis?

Exactly, and the biggest failure of all for the Tories (and Johnson in particular) would be the failure to deliver Brexit, which would theoretically give Labour/Corbyn an advantage in a delayed GE, with bonus points for being the party that supported "getting Brexit (un)done".

And yet it seems like Corbyn is prepared to gamble his best chance to be PM in the medium- to long-term against giving Johnson a bloody nose in the short term. For someone who's waited this long for the job, it feels very short-sighted.

L1011

The fact that "that time we got 40% of the vote with a True Socialist" to dine out on for decades would have been enough a few years ago. That was his chance to be PM. He didn't get it.

Joe_ Public

Minority lab administration and gnu are effectively the same thing arent they, assuming the latter is led by corbyn. The purpose in both would be to get 2nd ref, only question of what deal they come up with as an option. That bit could be complicated. I wonder if labour actually has any major objection with gnu, spent long enough talking about one anyway, rather than corbyn suffering the humiliation of seeing him fail if he put his name forward. Ken Clarke did hint he might be willing to back him iirc.

54and56

Leroy42 wrote: »

Reports coming out of the dropping of level playing field guarantees from TM deal within the updated deal

The more one digs, the more it seems the EU did very much cave in quite significantly to Johnson.

I hope that they don't vote for this WA because it seems very much like the EU are given far too much. Far more than they would if Ireland were to leave.

The UK economy is (on a generous measure of GDP) 7 times larger than RoI. What you get in trade agreements is a reflection of the size of your economy. What justification would there be for RoI to secure the same from an EU exit negotiation as the UK?

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the justification for dropping the LPF guarantee when we all know the UK intends to set up in direct competition with the EU?

I'm open to correction but the exact LPF terms will be negotiated as part of the FTA. Why put the financial settlement and a guaranteed solution to the border problem etc at risk by insisting on the previously agreed LPF terms when Boris needs that "win" to justify the concessions he has made and especially when the EU can hold off granting an FTA until satisfactory LPF terms are in fact agreed in the final FTA?

Capt'n Midnight

liamtech wrote: »

I agree with you, but lets face it - Brexit in general is a bad deal for the people of the UK.

The problem is that saying 'we got what we were looking for and about as far as we were going to get, no border on this island' - is only half the story

Ireland did get what it wants

And so did one community in Northern Ireland

The OTHER community however, did not.

First of all no one in NI got what they wanted.

But the nightmare scenario of a hard border bringing back the troubles is off the table. According to recent polls even reunification was preferred to that.

Second can you please define what you mean by OTHER community ?

Nationalists, industry, farmers, unions, small, u-unionists, anyone living near the border, the UUP, the 50% who don't identify with either tribe and even the DUP's most recent minister for finance have all supported the alternative to a hard border.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Not quite. The deal only covers Northern Ireland for goods. Services are excluded so the sort of people NI needs more of will be further incentivised to relocate to the Republic or elsewhere in the EU.

It doesn't cover services for the UK either so the EU still has LOTS of leverage

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

They made a terrible error campaigning for Brexit in the first place. There was no need to do it : their sister party, the Conservatives, were pro-Remain.

But then they wouldn't have gotten the dodgy money for running the Metro campaign, which didn't even run in NI.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-46118463

Under the rules which applied to donations to Northern Ireland parties at that time, the commission is not allowed to publish the identities of donors.

The irony is that SF are now flush thanks to money left in a will so they can completely out spend the DUP if there's an election.

Enzokk

I am not sure what Labour is playing at regarding an election or forming a GNU. I know they have a legitimate complaint of the Lib Dems not wanting Corbyn as leader of a GNU being ridiculous as it is a time of emergency and you do what is needed and he is the leader of the second largest party in Westminster.

At the same time it is a time of emergency and if Corbyn has to stand aside for a few months for the good of the country then he needs to do it. It is silly to point out that the Lib Dems are being unreasonable but at the same time ruling out forming a GNU if Corbyn isn't leader. It either is an emergency and you do what is needed or you are just messing about with politics. Both the Lib Dems and Labour seem to think it is okay to mess about for a little while still.

prawnsambo

54and56 wrote: »

I'm open to correction but the exact LPF terms will be negotiated as part of the FTA. Why put the financial settlement and a guaranteed solution to the border problem etc at risk by insisting on the previously agreed LPF terms when Boris needs that "win" to justify the concessions he has made and especially when the EU can hold off granting an FTA until satisfactory LPF terms are in fact agreed in the final FTA?

Also the LPF terms were there in May's deal because of the all-UK backstop keeping them in the customs union. Without that, the need for LPF terms fall away to the future relationship.

CelticRambler

Enzokk wrote: »

I know they have a legitimate complaint of the Lib Dems not wanting Corbyn as leader of a GNU being ridiculous as it is a time of emergency and you do what is needed and he is the leader of the second largest party in Westminster.

A GNU is/should be independent of party allegiance; as such, the caretaker PM should not be chosen from the current party leaders, and the LibDems have a valid point. At a push, a well-respected MP not standing for re-election would be a reasonable candidate, even if nominally affiliated with one party or another (and there is at least one such nominee in the HoC).

More to the point, Corbyn is a contentious figure even within the Labour Party - as is Johnson for the Tories - so if anything is to be considered ridiculous, it's arguing in favour of having a divisive personality at the head of a programme for unity!

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

A GNU is/should be independent of party allegiance; as such, the caretaker PM should not be chosen from the current party leaders, and the LibDems have a valid point. At a push, a well-respected MP not standing for re-election would be a reasonable candidate, even if nominally affiliated with one party or another (and there is at least one such nominee in the HoC).

More to the point, Corbyn is a contentious figure even within the Labour Party - as is Johnson for the Tories - so if anything is to be considered ridiculous, it's arguing in favour of having a divisive personality at the head of a programme for unity!

Especially when it's a union of party members from all the main parties in the HoC. And independents. All are needed, so the least contentious should be chosen. Put forward a number of choices and the one that gets everyone's support should be the goal.

briany

What's the story with Brexit next week? The deadline is on Thursday, the EU are waiting to see what the UK does before deciding the extension length, but what will the UK even move on? The push for a GE appears to be mired in disagreement over the date. How much longer are the EU going to wait?