Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

L1011 · 27-10-2019 6:58pm

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 · 27-10-2019 7:02pm

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 · 27-10-2019 7:17pm

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 · 27-10-2019 7:33pm

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 · 27-10-2019 7:42pm

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 · 27-10-2019 7:49pm

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 · 27-10-2019 8:00pm

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 · 27-10-2019 8:03pm

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 · 27-10-2019 8:17pm

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 · 27-10-2019 8:20pm

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?

An Ciarraioch · 27-10-2019 8:37pm

Seems extension will be until Jan 31st after all, with option to leave earlier if WAB ratified:

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1188534186061324288

SeaBreezes · 27-10-2019 8:52pm

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. And while i accept a number of facts that are sure to be highlight (DUP and unionists in general are to blame - brought this on themselves when they campaigned for Brexit) - none of this changes the fact that said community have been shafted

Once you move away from the obvious 'i told yee so' - this circle is less easy to square. This deal does place a very real trade border in the irish sea, and will be unacceptable to many unionists and loyalists - and depending on what happens there are sure to be widespread protests - this would not be unprecedented, they brought down sunning-dale remember

Anyway, a devils advocate position

Happy to discuss

I would suggest Ireland did not get what it wanted. What we want is the U.K. To stop punishing its citizens and forget this self destructive tendency and settle down and be happy and thrive as we would want for any sibling. :-) the crazy part is the UK have more say than any other country in the EU. Per population because of NI they have more MEPs.
And have always had more power than any other country in the EU per capita. They choose not to wield that power for good and instead elected useless MEPs that did no work and blamed everyone else.

jm08 · 27-10-2019 8:56pm

liamtech wrote: »

Once you move away from the obvious 'i told yee so' - this circle is less easy to square. This deal does place a very real trade border in the irish sea, and will be unacceptable to many unionists and loyalists - and depending on what happens there are sure to be widespread protests - this would not be unprecedented, they brought down sunning-dale remember.

It won't be so easy to shut down the place if they try that again. First of all, I can't see the Wrightbus employees downing tools bearing in mind that their new owner might not be so happy to go ahead with the purchase of it. The other major thing which I read somewhere is that the NI electricity supply is controlled (or can be controlled) from Dublin!

liamtech · 27-10-2019 9:34pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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.

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

SeaBreezes wrote: »

I would suggest Ireland did not get what it wanted. What we want is the U.K. To stop punishing its citizens and forget this self destructive tendency and settle down and be happy and thrive as we would want for any sibling. :-) the crazy part is the UK have more say than any other country in the EU. Per population because of NI they have more MEPs.
And have always had more power than any other country in the EU per capita. They choose not to wield that power for good and instead elected useless MEPs that did no work and blamed everyone else.

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

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.

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?

First of all i should like to re-iterate that i am very much in agreement with most posters on this site, including those quoted - il nutshell this to avoid rambling

Brexit is a terrible idea, and the fact the Leave side blatantly lied in the referendum should never be forgotten
The deal if implemented is going to be economically damaging to both the UK, and NI - and ireland in fairness
Finally its true that no one in northern ireland got what they wanted given the ref result, and the negotiations - and the fact that BoJo is not gonna give a second ref to remedy this

The problems as i see them and in contrast to you guys would be as follows - this is mainly hypothetical but it is not without precedent, hence i feel discussing it is perfectly valid - so here goes

1. Yes the hard border on the 6 counties was avoided in this deal, and i commend that. What i merely highlight is the fact that NI is locked into the CM/CU while the rest of the UK leaves, and if you can play devils advocate for a moment, and look at this from a Unionist POV, you will see the problem - the union is altered - now we may all believe this is not only beneficial in avoiding trouble on the border, but also beneficial economically, and i believe this is true! But we need to accept that economics is not the primary motivating factor for many in Northern Ireland. The 'Other Community' i was referring to was of course the Unionist/Loyalist population of the North. If they behave pragmatically, accepting the trade off, acknowledging the benefits, this deal will function adequately. This will require the broad Unionist community to effectively vote with their heads when ever given the opportunity. The genuine problem is i don't see them doing this. Unionists have for the most part voted DUP knowing full well that they originally opposed the GFA, and are the most extreme Unionist faction on the ballot paper (lets forget Jim Allister shall we). Said Party does not co-operate in power sharing, even when they were in GVT before the RHI Collapse.

2. The fact is that there is likely to be large scale protests if this deal goes ahead. I wouldnt be against peaceful protests, but in all sincerity, one must ask the question. Do the DUP, and their supporters know what a peaceful protest is? The Flag fiasco demonstrates that they dont, and that was only over the flag. What we are talking about here is by definition the biggest change in the status of Northern Ireland since partition. One could argue this was inevitable given the UK Decision on Brexit, more so their decision to do a Hard 'Leaving CU/CM' deal. I studied the troubles in college as part of an International Relations Degree and i can tell u that the Sunningdale Agreement, along with previous attempts at reconciling the problem of the north led to not just protests, but civil disobedience, wide spread strike, and violence. Hard core loyalism wont accept this deal. And all you need is a new 'Paisley' or 'Bill Craig' to whip up general opposition against this deal, and it will all happen again. Moderate Unionists will be incensed into taking sides, and those that dont could eventually fall into line by way of coercive tactics. The UVF used violence to enforce a Unionist strike against Sunningdale, so again nothing is unprecedented in this scenario. Unionism always behaves in Tribal fashion and when push comes to shove, the union will be the issue that unites them

3. Finally i have to conclude by saying its DEFINITELY not black and white. Despite the fact that Ireland and the EU behaved in the only way they could, with respect and genuine sincerity towards the UK, the narrative is already being spun that this 'violation of the union' is our fault. This narrative has existed all along with accusations of Dublin using the EU, and vice versa, to hold Ulster hostage etc - it doesnt matter that this is not the truth, this is the narrative that is being spun - and it will be where the rage is directed if this deal actually comes in to force. Even if ireland wished to say 'not our problem' at that point, it will in short order become our problem

Happy to discuss further, respectful as always

theological · 27-10-2019 10:01pm

briany wrote: »

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?

The EU waiting depends on what hard remainer politicians do next.

Boris Johnson has put a deal before parliament that was approved at its second reading. The problem is that MPs rejected it to be legislated for in time for the October 31st deadline.

This is why Johnson is calling for an election in December, which will be rejected again because the Labour party are too chicken to call an election (because the Conservatives will wipe the floor with them and the Lib Dems will pick up the hard remainers) and because 66% of MPs are needed for an election under the Fixed Term Parliament Act.

The Government should consider putting the legislation through parliament on a longer basis, and arrange for an election following this so that the next government can decide the course of action for the talks for a free trade agreement.

The problem is that there are a large number of MPs in parliament who are refusing the implement the decision the people took in 2016. That's the reality and it is because of hard remainer MPs, not the Conservative government who have brought this deal to parliament.

The polling suggests that the electorate will punish the Labour party heavily for the stance that they are choosing.

briany · 27-10-2019 10:04pm

liamtech wrote: »

But we need to accept that economics is not the primary motivating factor for many in Northern Ireland. The 'Other Community' i was referring to was of course the Unionist/Loyalist population of the North. If they behave pragmatically, accepting the trade off, acknowledging the benefits, this deal will function adequately. This will require the broad Unionist community to effectively vote with their heads when ever given the opportunity. The genuine problem is i don't see them doing this. Unionists have for the most part voted DUP knowing full well that they originally opposed the GFA, and are the most extreme Unionist faction on the ballot paper (lets forget Jim Allister shall we). Said Party does not co-operate in power sharing, even when they were in GVT before the RHI Collapse.

Those ordinary people in Northern Ireland who do not accept the economic argument will be forced to accept the economic argument, if the deal were to go at all well. I don't mean that they should be coerced into accepting the arrangement. What I mean is that your flag doesn't put food on the table. The symbolism of a few extra checks at the ports will not be more important than job security except to some of those without job security or a job in the first place.

I understand that there will be political elements who will want to undermine the arrangement as it stands. But of the two most possible outcomes for NI right now, i.e. the one that can be more easily implemented and has a majority of public and political support, or the one that can be less easily implemented and has a minority of political and public support, which one constitutes the 'good' deal, and which one the 'bad'? The idea of one side trying to wreck the deal is a defining feature of Northern Irish politics. We accept that will happen, and simply have to move through it as best we can. Outside of cancelling Brexit altogether or making it a rather soft one, this is the best thing yet to be proposed for NI. If there are any alternatives out there more to everyone's satisfaction, let us get them to relevant people ASAP.

trellheim · 27-10-2019 10:21pm

NI is not self sufficient in electricity generation hence the plan to float lots of barges with gennys up to NI

trellheim · 27-10-2019 10:28pm

understand that there will be political elements who will want to undermine the arrangement as it stands. But of the two most possible outcomes for NI right now, i.e. the one that can be more easily implemented and has a majority of public and political support, or the one that can be less easily implemented and has a minority of political and public support, which one constitutes the 'good' deal, and which one the 'bad'? The idea of one side trying to wreck the deal is a defining feature of Northern Irish politics. We accept that will happen, and simply have to move through it as best we can. Outside of cancelling Brexit altogether or making it a rather soft one, this is the best thing yet to be proposed for NI. If there are any alternatives out there more to everyone's satisfaction, let us get them to relevant people ASAP.

If an election were held right now would the seat mix radically change ?

CelticRambler · 27-10-2019 10:37pm

theological wrote: »

Boris Johnson has put a deal before parliament that was approved at its second reading.

Correction: Johnson's deal was approved for its second reading (during which time it can be ammended considerably)

theological wrote: »

The problem is that there are a large number of MPs in parliament who are refusing the implement the decision the people took in 2016. That's the reality and it is because of hard remainer MPs, not the Conservative government who have brought this deal to parliament.

Clarification: MPs in parliament implemented the wishes of the people, as expressed in the non-binding referendum of 2016, by triggering Article 50. The reality is that the process has since become bogged down in the entirely foreseeable quagmire of not knowing what the people really wanted when they cast their vote.

briany · 27-10-2019 10:46pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

Clarification: MPs in parliament implemented the wishes of the people, as expressed in the non-binding referendum of 2016, by triggering Article 50. The reality is that the process has since become bogged down in the entirely foreseeable quagmire of not knowing what the people really wanted when they cast their vote.

"We voted to leave the EU"

"Grand, so. We'll move a Norway arrangement."

"That's not what we voted for."

"You voted to leave the EU."

"Yes"

"Well, Norway's not in the EU."

"But they're in the Single Market."

"The EU and the Single Market aren't the same thing, exactly."

"Well, when we voted to leave the EU, we also voted to leave the Single Market."

"I'm sorry, where did it say about leaving the Single Market in the referendum?"

"Leave means leave."

Repeat until you have a horrible throbbing pain behind both eyes.

Strazdas · 27-10-2019 10:51pm

briany wrote: »

"We voted to leave the EU"

"Grand, so. We'll move a Norway arrangement."

"That's not what we voted for."

"You voted to leave the EU."

"Yes"

"Well, Norway's not in the EU."

"But they're in the Single Market."

"The EU and the Single Market aren't the same thing, exactly."

"Well, when we voted to leave the EU, we also voted to leave the Single Market."

"I'm sorry, where did it say about leaving the Single Market in the referendum?"

"Leave means leave."

Repeat until you have a horrible throbbing pain behind both eyes.

The ballot paper, which was evidently written in crayon on the back of a cigarette packet, didn't even define what "the European Union" was.

CelticRambler · 27-10-2019 10:53pm

liamtech wrote: »

What i merely highlight is the fact that NI is locked into the CM/CU while the rest of the UK leaves, and if you can play devils advocate for a moment, and look at this from a Unionist POV, you will see the problem - the union is altered

The union the capital-U Unionists believe in ceased to exist 100 years ago - if it ever existed even before that. They have never accepted that the UK has always been made up of GB on one side and (Northern) Ireland on the other, with a deep, unbridgeable sea between the two islands - and even though they exploit that difference when it suits them. All that Brexit has done - and the Johnson WA in particular - is to highlight just how separate and distinct they are from the British.

Recent machinations have also shown the Scots how separate, distinct and irrelevant they are to the English political process; they have reacted with a hearty "F**k You" and invested ever more energy into preparing for their independence. In contrast, the DUP is like the battered wife of an alcoholic husband who refuses to divorce him, even though he has heaped every calumny upon her, and she's got a reliable friend right next door, desperately trying to help her see sense.

In short: there is no point whatsoever in trying to see things from the DUP's point of view - devil's advocate or not - because they simply do not belong in the 21st (or 20th ...) Century. They can spin and rage and threaten all they like, but they're a spent force, and if they're not going to represent the best interests of people of NI, someone else will ... and right now, that just happens to be the government of the Republic in collaboration with the EU.

briany · 27-10-2019 11:01pm

Strazdas wrote: »

The ballot paper, which was evidently written in crayon on the back of a cigarette packet, didn't even define what "the European Union" was.

I wouldn't necessarily mind that so much as there's only so much room on a sheet of paper, but I'm more vexed by the Vote Leave leaflet not bothering to define what EFTA or a customs union was in terms of their respective obligations and that the UK could be part of one or both after Brexit. You know how you get all these people on Question Time who say, "We voted to LEAVE!! No deals! Just leave!". I'm really puzzled how they're so confident that not a significant proportion of Leave voters actually voted the way they did based on the confident assertions made before the referendum that turned out to be a total crock of s***.

Water John · 27-10-2019 11:03pm

We know Tories have a lead in the Polls but elections, once called, have a life of their own. We can surmise the Lib Dems and SNP will pick up seats. The crucial question as to whether the Tories will get a governing majority is, I would say 50:50 at best.

Strazdas · 27-10-2019 11:04pm

briany wrote: »

I wouldn't necessarily mind that so much as there's only so much room on a sheet of paper, but I'm more vexed by the Vote Leave leaflet not bothering to define what EFTA or a customs union was in terms of their respective obligations and that the UK could be part of one or both after Brexit. You know how you get all these people on Question Time who say, "We voted to LEAVE!! No deals! Just leave!". I'm really puzzled how they're so confident that not a significant proportion of Leave voters actually voted the way they did based on the confident assertions made before the referendum that turned out to be a total crock of s***.

Most of the arguments for the last three years have been because the utter sham of a referendum didn't even define what the UK was leaving. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the SMCU? No wonder no two people can even agree on the subject.

briany · 27-10-2019 11:12pm

Strazdas wrote: »

Most of the arguments for the last three years have been because the utter sham of a referendum didn't even define what the UK was leaving. Was it the 28 member political union? Was it the SMCU? No wonder no two people can even agree on the subject.

It was an advisory referendum where the exact terms were agreed, anecdotally, and how to implement it would be decided upon after a Leave vote was delivered (per JRM on ref results night). Now, if that isn't a recipe for political success, I don't know what is.

trellheim · 27-10-2019 11:25pm

They can spin and rage and threaten all they like, but they're a spent force

Ref the DUP I cannot see it working without them - a wrecking customs union amendment will rip the Tory party even further apart . Johnson got to 2nd reading but with all the opposition a Customs union amendment could get a majority and the EU would go for it but if you think the Tories are riven now you've seen nothing yet as it would be the Headbangers ball.

One point I am interested in - did transition date shift 6 months or what , is it rolling with the extensions or are we storing up a lot of grief

prawnsambo · 27-10-2019 11:26pm

liamtech wrote: »

3. Finally i have to conclude by saying its DEFINITELY not black and white. Despite the fact that Ireland and the EU behaved in the only way they could, with respect and genuine sincerity towards the UK, the narrative is already being spun that this 'violation of the union' is our fault. This narrative has existed all along with accusations of Dublin using the EU, and vice versa, to hold Ulster hostage etc - it doesnt matter that this is not the truth, this is the narrative that is being spun - and it will be where the rage is directed if this deal actually comes in to force. Even if ireland wished to say 'not our problem' at that point, it will in short order become our problem

Happy to discuss further, respectful as always

There is another narrative out there too. That the DUP got screwed and dumped by the Tories. Again. And what's worse is they stamped their feet and voted against a better offer that was available to them. Not once, but three times.

This is on them. And Boris Johnson. Because he's the other party to this agreement.

liamtech · 27-10-2019 11:43pm

CelticRambler wrote: »

The union the capital-U Unionists believe in ceased to exist 100 years ago - if it ever existed even before that. They have never accepted that the UK has always been made up of GB on one side and (Northern) Ireland on the other, with a deep, unbridgeable sea between the two islands - and even though they exploit that difference when it suits them. All that Brexit has done - and the Johnson WA in particular - is to highlight just how separate and distinct they are from the British.

Recent machinations have also shown the Scots how separate, distinct and irrelevant they are to the English political process; they have reacted with a hearty "F**k You" and invested ever more energy into preparing for their independence. In contrast, the DUP is like the battered wife of an alcoholic husband who refuses to divorce him, even though he has heaped every calumny upon her, and she's got a reliable friend right next door, desperately trying to help her see sense.

In short: there is no point whatsoever in trying to see things from the DUP's point of view - devil's advocate or not - because they simply do not belong in the 21st (or 20th ...) Century. They can spin and rage and threaten all they like, but they're a spent force, and if they're not going to represent the best interests of people of NI, someone else will ... and right now, that just happens to be the government of the Republic in collaboration with the EU.

prawnsambo wrote: »

There is another narrative out there too. That the DUP got screwed and dumped by the Tories. Again. And what's worse is they stamped their feet and voted against a better offer that was available to them. Not once, but three times.

This is on them. And Boris Johnson. Because he's the other party to this agreement.

CelticRambler - without doubt the greatest metaphor for the DUP i have ever seen!

I think you're all correct RE the DUP - my concern is Unionism as a community/population in the north - and whether they will be whipped up against the deal and, as a result the people who they blame for the deal

IMHO, unionism has always behaved as CelticRambler has said - treated badly by one party (in this case the Tories) - ends up blaming another (the EU and US) - but this is not just a DUP thing, and like i said all you need is a new Carson, Craig, or Paisley to whip them up and there will be genuine trouble

Logic will play no part in it - Tories shaft them - Johnson humiliates them by turning up at a Unionist conference in the UK and cheering to shouts of no surrender, and a week later stabs them in the back - who do they blame? it will be the EU and the Irish Government -

The narrative will be sold not just to DUP loyalists - but to unionism as a whole community, and if they buy it, this will be a problem

prawnsambo · 27-10-2019 11:53pm

liamtech wrote: »

CelticRambler - without doubt the greatest metaphor for the DUP i have ever seen!

I think you're all correct RE the DUP - my concern is Unionism as a community/population in the north - and whether they will be whipped up against the deal and, as a result the people who they blame for the deal

IMHO, unionism has always behaved as CelticRambler has said - treated badly by one party (in this case the Tories) - ends up blaming another (the EU and US) - but this is not just a DUP thing, and like i said all you need is a new Carson, Craig, or Paisley to whip them up and there will be genuine trouble

Logic will play no part in it - Tories shaft them - Johnson humiliates them by turning up at a Unionist conference in the UK and cheering to shouts of no surrender, and a week later stabs them in the back - who do they blame? it will be the EU and the Irish Government -

The narrative will be sold not just to DUP loyalists - but to unionism as a whole community, and if they buy it, this will be a problem

There surely will be people who believe that and will blame us and the EU. But there will be a lot more people who will see what the SNP knows and the DUP have learned, that the Tories and the wider Westminster parliament, hell even the British population of the 'mainland' couldn't give a toss about them. And the stark reality is that the EU cared more about one of its members than the UK government did about one of its constituent nations.

ancapailldorcha · 28-10-2019 12:20am

Water John wrote: »

We know Tories have a lead in the Polls but elections, once called, have a life of their own. We can surmise the Lib Dems and SNP will pick up seats. The crucial question as to whether the Tories will get a governing majority is, I would say 50:50 at best.

I'm inclined to agree.

I hate to go against the expertise of people like Strathclyde University's Professor John Curtis who have turned polling into a science insofar as such a thing can be done on the basis of my own feelings but we need to see how Johnson and Corbyn plan and execute their campaigns. Will Johnson seek a mandate for his deal or plump for none? Will Corbyn finally embrace fully the People's Vote? If not, I can see Swindon making significant gains.

cameramonkey · 28-10-2019 12:23am

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree.

I hate to go against the expertise of people like Strathclyde University's Professor John Curtis who have turned polling into a science insofar as such a thing can be done on the basis of my own feelings but we need to see how Johnson and Corbyn plan and execute their campaigns. Will Johnson seek a mandate for his deal or plump for none? Will Corbyn finally embrace fully the People's Vote? If not, I can see Swindon making significant gains.

Swindon might lose her seat, the party may make gains.

Joe_ Public · 28-10-2019 12:30am

The notion that the tories are absolutely gunning for an early election isnt fully accurate i dont think, lot of reports that there is a split among their ranks too and that even johnson himself may not be as gung ho as he lets on. Big risks for them too. Will be interesting to see how they respond to the ld/snp motion if it does come before the house. Without brexit bill being passed i wouldnt give much chance of a tory majority, be more inclined to think they'd lose seats. Just hard to know how much damage farage would inflict on them.

L1011 · 28-10-2019 12:53am

trellheim wrote: »

NI is not self sufficient in electricity generation hence the plan to float lots of barges with gennys up to NI

The plan labelled "Ulster Workers Council Strike 1974"?

The Irish State owns the grid and distribution networks (and some of the power plants too) this time, though.

Strazdas · 28-10-2019 1:19am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The notion that the tories are absolutely gunning for an early election isnt fully accurate i dont think, lot of reports that there is a split among their ranks too and that even johnson himself may not be as gung ho as he lets on. Big risks for them too. Will be interesting to see how they respond to the ld/snp motion if it does come before the house. Without brexit bill being passed i wouldnt give much chance of a tory majority, be more inclined to think they'd lose seats. Just hard to know how much damage farage would inflict on them.

A GE would be high risk for Johnson and the Tories. The current political atmosphere in the UK is very volatile. He could win a comfortable overall majority or could perform badly and be way short in seats (which could well mean 'Goodnight Vienna' for his political career).

Joe_ Public · 28-10-2019 1:28am

Strazdas wrote: »

A GE would be high risk for Johnson and the Tories. The current political atmosphere in the UK is very volatile. He could win a comfortable overall majority or could perform badly and be way short in seats (which could well mean 'Goodnight Vienna' for his political career).

Maybe wishful thinking on my part but i'm backing him to get no majority whatsoever on the understanding he'll go into election with yet another broken promise behind him. Be interested whether he goes around selling his "great" deal or whether he pretty much ditches it. Opposition has big problems too, but this guy who people keep banging on about his popularity was being booed all over the country on his travels a few weeks back!

Strazdas · 28-10-2019 1:33am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Maybe wishful thinking on my part but i'm backing him to get no majority whatsoever on the understanding he'll go into election with yet another broken promise behind him. Be interested whether he goes around selling his "great" deal or whether he pretty much ditches it. Opposition has big problems too, but this guy who people keep banging on about his popularity was being booed all over the country on his travels a few weeks back!

If he was to fail to be PM after a GE, I'd say his political career would be over immediately. He and Cummings are playing for high stakes. Many people like him and many people absolutely detest him, we don't really know what the numbers are.

Leroy42 · 28-10-2019 2:06am

They said that about TM.

It all depends on short of a majority he would be and more crucially who would replace him.

A drop in support for Labour could be spun into a win, especially if the BP take seats that deny the TP a majority.

But if they lost, who would take over?

Junkyard Tom · 28-10-2019 3:11am

CelticRambler wrote: »

the DUP is like the battered wife of an alcoholic husband who refuses to divorce him, even though he has heaped every calumny upon her, and she's got a reliable friend right next door, desperately trying to help her see sense.

But this wife will choose to blame the friend-next-door for destroying her marriage rather than accept her husband doesn't care about her.

If a poker player only bets when he has a powerful hand everyone else folds rendering it worthless. The predictability of the DUP's politics of 'no' means that their intractability is factored in and worked around.

jimmycrackcorm · 28-10-2019 3:11am

liamtech wrote: »

3. Finally i have to conclude by saying its DEFINITELY not black and white. Despite the fact that Ireland and the EU behaved in the only way they could, with respect and genuine sincerity towards the UK, the narrative is already being spun that this 'violation of the union' is our fault. This narrative has existed all along with accusations of Dublin using the EU, and vice versa, to hold Ulster hostage etc - it doesnt matter that this is not the truth, this is the narrative that is being spun - and it will be where the rage is directed if this deal actually comes in to force. Even if ireland wished to say 'not our problem' at that point, it will in short order become our problems

Context is different though. In the era of mass loyalist civil dissent, NI was effectively a bitterly divided war zone. It was easy then to go out and protest as if you're defending your side in " the war".

But having secured a peace and especially after setting a working model of power sharing, its going to very difficult for many unionists to go out and protest to the same level.

It's hard to see how someone can rise up in unionist circles to the level now to become a focus point to lead such discord. Historically Gerry Adams became the face of republicanism because of the treatment of nationalists, and Big Ian the focal point of a response to IRA violence, both extreme positions.

The fact that SF have basically stayed quiet on the issue just points out to unionists that they don't have their traditional enemy to blame and to go out and protest is just a signal to the Tories that they are troublesome and the tories should go ahead and lance the British boil by instigating a border poll.

Panrich · 28-10-2019 9:04am

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Context is different though. In the era of mass loyalist civil dissent, NI was effectively a bitterly divided war zone. It was easy then to go out and protest as if you're defending your side in " the war".

But having secured a peace and especially after setting a working model of power sharing, its going to very difficult for many unionists to go out and protest to the same level.

It's hard to see how someone can rise up in unionist circles to the level now to become a focus point to lead such discord. Historically Gerry Adams became the face of republicanism because of the treatment of nationalists, and Big Ian the focal point of a response to IRA violence, both extreme positions.

The fact that SF have basically stayed quiet on the issue just points out to unionists that they don't have their traditional enemy to blame and to go out and protest is just a signal to the Tories that they are troublesome and the tories should go ahead and lance the British boil by instigating a border poll.

I hope that you’re right in this. The worry is that there is a vacuum in normal politics in the North ever since Stormont has been sidelined.

It doesn’t take much imagination to see radicals on either side emerge from this scenario.

woohoo!!! · 28-10-2019 9:07am

I do hope Jamie gets his protests up and running. It'll be hilarious when the feared loyalist apocalyptic movement turns out to be akin to something out of fr. Ted. Massively overestimating their own hand and constant cock ups, that's the DUP.

They'll still get their votes cos the NI elections are just a sectarian head count. The alliance vote is the one to watch.

Russman · 28-10-2019 9:13am

liamtech wrote: »

First of all i should like to re-iterate that i am very much in agreement with most posters on this site, including those quoted - il nutshell this to avoid rambling
Brexit is a terrible idea, and the fact the Leave side blatantly lied in the referendum should never be forgotten

The deal if implemented is going to be economically damaging to both the UK, and NI - and ireland in fairness

Finally its true that no one in northern ireland got what they wanted given the ref result, and the negotiations - and the fact that BoJo is not gonna give a second ref to remedy this

The problems as i see them and in contrast to you guys would be as follows - this is mainly hypothetical but it is not without precedent, hence i feel discussing it is perfectly valid - so here goes

1. Yes the hard border on the 6 counties was avoided in this deal, and i commend that. What i merely highlight is the fact that NI is locked into the CM/CU while the rest of the UK leaves, and if you can play devils advocate for a moment, and look at this from a Unionist POV, you will see the problem - the union is altered - now we may all believe this is not only beneficial in avoiding trouble on the border, but also beneficial economically, and i believe this is true! But we need to accept that economics is not the primary motivating factor for many in Northern Ireland. The 'Other Community' i was referring to was of course the Unionist/Loyalist population of the North. If they behave pragmatically, accepting the trade off, acknowledging the benefits, this deal will function adequately. This will require the broad Unionist community to effectively vote with their heads when ever given the opportunity. The genuine problem is i don't see them doing this. Unionists have for the most part voted DUP knowing full well that they originally opposed the GFA, and are the most extreme Unionist faction on the ballot paper (lets forget Jim Allister shall we). Said Party does not co-operate in power sharing, even when they were in GVT before the RHI Collapse.

2. The fact is that there is likely to be large scale protests if this deal goes ahead. I wouldnt be against peaceful protests, but in all sincerity, one must ask the question. Do the DUP, and their supporters know what a peaceful protest is? The Flag fiasco demonstrates that they dont, and that was only over the flag. What we are talking about here is by definition the biggest change in the status of Northern Ireland since partition. One could argue this was inevitable given the UK Decision on Brexit, more so their decision to do a Hard 'Leaving CU/CM' deal. I studied the troubles in college as part of an International Relations Degree and i can tell u that the Sunningdale Agreement, along with previous attempts at reconciling the problem of the north led to not just protests, but civil disobedience, wide spread strike, and violence. Hard core loyalism wont accept this deal. And all you need is a new 'Paisley' or 'Bill Craig' to whip up general opposition against this deal, and it will all happen again. Moderate Unionists will be incensed into taking sides, and those that dont could eventually fall into line by way of coercive tactics. The UVF used violence to enforce a Unionist strike against Sunningdale, so again nothing is unprecedented in this scenario. Unionism always behaves in Tribal fashion and when push comes to shove, the union will be the issue that unites them

3. Finally i have to conclude by saying its DEFINITELY not black and white. Despite the fact that Ireland and the EU behaved in the only way they could, with respect and genuine sincerity towards the UK, the narrative is already being spun that this 'violation of the union' is our fault. This narrative has existed all along with accusations of Dublin using the EU, and vice versa, to hold Ulster hostage etc - it doesnt matter that this is not the truth, this is the narrative that is being spun - and it will be where the rage is directed if this deal actually comes in to force. Even if ireland wished to say 'not our problem' at that point, it will in short order become our problem

Happy to discuss further, respectful as always

I broadly agree with you here, but it also highlights two things for me:

1) They’re still in the realm of unicorns re the Union being altered. It’s simply not possible to have as hard a Brexit as TM wanted and not change the Union to some degree or other. Whether they realised that in 2016 or not is neither here nor there. It’s like voting to cut your arm off because your finger is sore, but demanding you still have two arms, and insisting it’s up to the doctor to compromise.

2) the inherent hypocrisy of the DUP. When it’s pointed out that NI voted remain they insist it was a UK wide vote and that’s what needs to be respected. Yet when the UK parliament decides on a withdrawal agreement for the “good” of the UK as a whole they scream bloody murder about their wishes not being respected.

I don’t know how it plays out, but I suspect it’ll take the hardship biting hard to bring sense to them both up there and across the water via the farmers, traders and any normal people, because the hard core aren’t for learning and if they’re pandered to further it damages us in the republic.

bazermc · 28-10-2019 10:20am

What time is the vote on election motion due at?

Enzokk · 28-10-2019 10:31am

Extension secured, no fuss from France or Hungary or Poland as expected.

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1188748108764721152?s=20

"The EU27 has agreed that it will accept the UK's request for a #Brexit flextension until 31 January 2020. The decision is expected to be formalised through a written procedure."

hometruths · 28-10-2019 10:35am

Surely with extension agreed, No Deal is off the table until January 30th.

Can Labour credibly refuse an election in December today? Their conditions for backing an election have been met.

robinph · 28-10-2019 10:50am

schmittel wrote: »

Surely with extension agreed, No Deal is off the table until January 30th.

Can Labour credibly refuse an election in December today? Their conditions for backing an election have been met.

Johnsons conditions for the election was that they had to vote for his deal first, so yes they can reject it.... and once they had approved his deal he'd then give them more time to read the deal.

Headshot · 28-10-2019 11:04am

schmittel wrote: »

Surely with extension agreed, No Deal is off the table until January 30th.

Can Labour credibly refuse an election in December today? Their conditions for backing an election have been met.

Labour would be signing their own death warrant

A Dub in Glasgo · 28-10-2019 11:05am

Johnsons conditions are ridiculous, give me an election and I will let you have a look at the bill

Tired Gardener · 28-10-2019 11:23am

schmittel wrote: »

Surely with extension agreed, No Deal is off the table until January 30th.

Can Labour credibly refuse an election in December today? Their conditions for backing an election have been met.

Yes, it is a trap. The whole Brexit thing is a Tory problem, if Labour were to form the UK's government they'd be taking flack and get blames for all the crap that Brexit is going to cause.

Also there is the chance that the knuckle dragging Nigel Farage followers would propel his Brexit Party into having a good number of seats in the HoC in a general election. They were all geared up to have it done by the 31/10... so they'll most likely stick it to Boris Johnson. Which would be an insane development, but this is the **** show of Brexit, so expect the unexpected.

The best that Labour can do now is to keep the Tory minority government powerless by being able to oppose it and allow it to continue to tear itself apart.

However, with all things Brexit, who can tell, it really is hard to gauge what is going to happen next with it.

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments