Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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!

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?

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.