Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Infini · 16-10-2019 11:26pm

Water John wrote: »

The 60:40 is you're measure, not an objective one.
It does need to shift more than it is but it is creeping there. Brexit being passed will give it a major boost.

Remember they only lost the indyref1 over the EU membership questions at the time. Tories proceeded to shaft Scotland with Brexit so Indyref2 will be to become independent if theres a crash or they're dragged out of the EU after this.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

Only way our side should see ANY of this as acceptable is in the event of no agreement or that if the assembly votes to "leave" then a Border Poll is the fallback position on all of this having a UI as a fallback position would focus enough of the DUP to not risk it.

Spanish Eyes · 16-10-2019 11:27pm

Enzokk wrote: »

It seems James O'Brien may be right, Johnson has looked over the edge of no-deal and like May before him he has read, or been read, the reports on security and the very real chance of people losing their lives due to Brexit. He has decided he cannot and will not do that and has gone for the option most likely to pass through parliament.

Yes it would be obvious to anyone that leaving EU without a sketch of a plan would not work. And it won't. Because there is no plan and never will be either.

Can someone explain to me how the ERG is a substratum of the Tory Party in Government. I fail to get my head around their influence TBH.

Joe_ Public · 16-10-2019 11:29pm

What is it the erg want in all this? Outside of their weird bromance with the dup, I'd have thought escaping all the regulatory frameworks would be a red line for them but the pm seems to be going in the opposite direction. Very hard to square all this.

Beechwoodspark · 16-10-2019 11:31pm

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

Imreoir2 · 16-10-2019 11:32pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any word out of Scotland on all this?

Seemingly they want an independance referendum, can't blame them tbf.

Water John · 16-10-2019 11:32pm

I have thought about it, why and when Johnson changed his approach and focus. Yes, there are reports that a detail on possible violence in NI affected him but I'm wondering was it something more personal.
I'm thinking of the public bollicking he got from his sister Rachel. Most men would actually be quite affected by how a sister would view their actions.

Infini · 16-10-2019 11:33pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

I'd consider them a subversive party within a party to be fair they're essentially UKIP for diaster capitalists had they been booted out of the conservative party years ago instead of their poisonous views tolerated we might be in a completely different place.

Kermit.de.frog · 16-10-2019 11:34pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

This is the kind of thing I was afraid of. Here is the BBC's Adam Fleming on the consent idea being floated:

So they acknowledge there is a chance the unionists could get their way via a simple majority method and to stop it nationalists would have to hope SF bring down the Executive again - that will really go down well with the unionist community and improve relations!

They're basically sacrificing the potential for NI to ever have good cross-community relations.

There is no unionist veto there then.

That's fine for me tbh.

Spanish Eyes · 16-10-2019 11:39pm

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The erg are the hardliners against the EU. They are a subset of the Tory party. Approx 60-80 MPs as far as I know. Obviously their votes are required by the PM to get his bills through.

Why don't they establish their own party? Well I know why of course, but honestly, they have influence far beyond their representation. Most of them come across as total idiots, like Mark Francois and Jacob Rees Mogg. and some others.

They should be forbidden from calling themselves ERG, they are Tory elected. Bet they had Tory (Blue) stickers on their election day. Did they call themselves Tory/ERG? doubt it. So they got in by the back door.

And who are they researching anyway? I have not to date read an ERG paper. But that may be just me.

BarryD2 · 16-10-2019 11:42pm

And we again may ask where will the SF MPs be next Saturday? Pulling their weight for Ireland? Sitting on their hands? If things go pear shaped for NI, let’s hope the respective voters of SF and the DUP kick them out next opportunity.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-10-2019 11:44pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

And we again may ask where will the SF MPs be next Saturday?

You know the answer to that one

Mr.Nice Guy · 16-10-2019 11:45pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is no unionist veto there then.

That's fine for me tbh.

Not sure it is fine for me.

Imagining a scenario in which the unionist parties look like they have the numbers to return to the UK customs fold and they're thwarted by Sinn Fein pulling the plug on Stormont. I don't want to think about the fury that would generate within loyalist areas. 'Our Britishness is under threat', 'we're being annexed by Irish republicanism' etc.

Also not sure the Irish government has fully thought through the wisdom of effectively giving Sinn Fein the weight of responsibility in protecting Ireland's customs relationship with the EU for the forseeable future.

Kermit.de.frog · 16-10-2019 11:50pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not sure it is fine for me.

Imagining a scenario in which the unionist parties look like they have the numbers to return to the UK customs fold and they're thwarted by Sinn Fein pulling the plug on Stormont. I don't want to think about the fury that would generate within loyalist areas. 'Our Britishness is under threat', 'we're being annexed by Irish republicanism' etc.

Also not sure the Irish government has fully thought through the wisdom of effectively giving Sinn Fein the weight of responsibility in protecting Ireland's customs relationship with the EU for the forseeable future.

Yes,

But the problem is you assume we will get everything we want and the other side can't even "pretend" they have got something they can use for their base in order to sell it.

That is not how negotiation works. There is always give and take.

We have advanced more than enough changes to meet the objective of no hard border.

If unionists want to comfort themselves with something in practice they would never use, good luck to them.

Tea Shock · 16-10-2019 11:51pm

After reading all the updates, I gave 2 thoughts

1: There is no way the proposals so far outlined are passing thru a HoC vote

2: If this does pass, the Government front bench are up to no good. We have been speculating for the last month as to why they were being so smug about whatever mechanism they had dreamed up to get around the Benn Act. If they support this, it was their trick all along. Undoubtedly!

Varta · 16-10-2019 11:56pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Dominic Lawson on newsnight earlier suggesting the "people" would burn down parliament if brexit was delayed again. Nobody skipped a beat. Sign of where we've got to with all this, I guess.

That's not what he said. He referred to this night 180 (thereabouts) years ago when parliament burned down and the public did nothing to help put out the fire. He then said that if it were to burn down after brexit was delayed the public would might react in the same way.

I'm not being picky, but misquoting and misattributing has been a serious problem in this whole mess.

Mr.Nice Guy · 16-10-2019 11:57pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes,

But the problem is you assume we will get everything we want and the other side can't even "pretend" they have got something they can use for their base in order to sell it.

That is not how negotiation works. There is always give and take.

We have advanced more than enough changes to meet the objective of no hard border.

If unionists want to comfort themselves with something in practice they would never use, good luck to them.

The problem is you assume they will put pragmatism before patriotism and that is not the way those parties work.

Reminder Stormont is on ice at the cost of millions because they can't stomach a basic Irish language act. These are the guys who sat by and watched millions go down the drain over fleg protests like the Twaddell Avenue one that was a serious pain on public resources.

These are the guys we have to trust to look after our all-island economy, and if we're concerned they won't then we have to hope Sinn Fein risk the peace process by bringing down the Executive again.

Failing to see where the 'give' is here for us.

MrMusician18 · 16-10-2019 11:57pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Honestly everything was going fine wasn't it? Until someone decided that UKIP might usurp things in time. Eu via Cameron was approached to see if it would change things to suit UK, non.

And then there was Brexit. Just a short summary!

And so here we are.

Everything was not going fine. The world had gone through the sharpest recession since the 1930s and just like then, ordinary people were led to believe that the cause of all their ills was the EU.

Of course it hadn't helped that the British media had free the UK public a diet of lies for the past 40 years wrt Europe.

Varta · 16-10-2019 11:57pm

The only interesting piece on Newsnight was the piece on NI where so many unionists seemed resigned to a UI.

Tea Shock · 16-10-2019 11:58pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not sure it is fine for me.

Imagining a scenario in which the unionist parties look like they have the numbers to return to the UK customs fold and they're thwarted by Sinn Fein pulling the plug on Stormont.
.

I’m confused

I thought I read consent would be a majority of MLA’s present in the Stormont chamber? In which case SF not participating would merely make it easier for the unionists to win a simple majority!

No?

Kermit.de.frog · 16-10-2019 11:58pm

Tea Shock wrote: »

After reading all the updates, I gave 2 thoughts

1: There is no way the proposals so far outlined are passing thru a HoC vote

2: If this does pass, the Government front bench are up to no good. We have been speculating for the last month as to why they were being so smug about whatever mechanism they had dreamed up to get around the Benn Act. If they support this, it was their trick all along. Undoubtedly!

Apparently the UK has now signed up to level playing field conditions on regulations etc with the EU (amazingly) which means that is likely to attract Labour votes.

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-10-2019 12:01am

Tea Shock wrote: »

I’m confused

I thought I read consent would be a majority of MLA’s present in the Stormont chamber? In which case SF not participating would merely make it easier for the unionists to win a simple majority!

No?

Power-sharing collapses when the Deputy First Minister resigns. That's how Martin McGuinness brought it down in 2017.

54and56 · 17-10-2019 12:02am

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I presume it is a simple majority in Stormont to overrule?

If it requires a 66% majority in the HoC to call an election why should anything less apply to NI on a vote to ditch the status quo arrangements?

Tea Shock · 17-10-2019 12:05am

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Power-sharing collapses when the Deputy First Minister resigns. That's how Martin McGuinness brought it down in 2017.

That’s according to the GFA

This entire process being proposed is at odds with the GFA is it not?
Otherwise why would they be so explicit about the MLAs present

McMurphy · 17-10-2019 12:06am

BarryD2 wrote: »

And we again may ask where will the SF MPs be next Saturday? Pulling their weight for Ireland? Sitting on their hands? If things go pear shaped for NI, let’s hope the respective voters of SF and the DUP kick them out next opportunity.

Not this shyte again.

MrMusician18 · 17-10-2019 12:06am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Yes,

But the problem is you assume we will get everything we want and the other side can't even "pretend" they have got something they can use for their base in order to sell it.

That is not how negotiation works. There is always give and take.

We have advanced more than enough changes to meet the objective of no hard border.

If unionists want to comfort themselves with something in practice they would never use, good luck to them.

The problem with mechanisms that are often designed not to be used, often do get used.
Two examples:
The Scottish parliament was constituted in such a way that it was thought it would be impossible for the SNP to get a majority of its own, yet that has happened.
Art. 50 was designed to be so punitive that no right thinking nation would ever invoke it, yet that too has happened.

This simple majority NI assembly mechanism will almost certainly cause a crisis in time. Even the idea is odd, an international treaty laying down the mechanism how the UK operates that treaty internally. I don't think there would be much the EU could do if the UK Parliament as it's sovereign right, decided another way to resolve the border

Mr.Nice Guy · 17-10-2019 12:16am

Tea Shock wrote: »

That’s according to the GFA

This entire process being proposed is at odds with the GFA is it not?
Otherwise why would they be so explicit about the MLAs present

The DUP seem to think that's the case. Foster was critical of Varadkar earlier for suggesting changes to the voting system.

They might all eventually come to agree on accepting a majority vote without any veto being used, but would there be more changes beyond that? Surely the ability of one side to bring down Stormont can't be changed since it's dependent on the sharing of power to function.

I'd be surprised if the DUP go along with it because it doesn't look great from their perspective. Suppose it depends how cornered they feel.

WomanSkirtFan8 · 17-10-2019 12:23am

Varta wrote: »

The only interesting piece on Newsnight was the piece on NI where so many unionists seemed resigned to a UI.

And that's in no doubt due to the hardline and absolutely bonkers position of the DUP. Because of their current stance, they're now driving a wedge between themselves and fellow unionists which can only result in disaster. :rolleyes:

J Mysterio · 17-10-2019 12:24am

Worth mentioning that the chairman of the Ways and Means committee in the US, Richard Neal, reiterated his position on Brexit a few times over the last few days. I heard him on Radio 1 earlier.

Said that if UK cause harm to GFA and NI, they will not get a trade deal with the US. Says he said this ditectly to May when PM, to Corbyn, and more recently, to Raab as Foreign Minister. Reiterated support Pelosi, who herself made this point only so recently.

If there is to be Brexit, it's imperative for Johnson that he is seen to come to an agreement with Ireland and the EU on the North.

https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1184604202171011073

RobMc59 · 17-10-2019 12:28am

Varta wrote: »

The only interesting piece on Newsnight was the piece on NI where so many unionists seemed resigned to a UI.

If this touted deal goes through I see no call from NI for a UI in the foreseeable future,-there will be more chance of Scottish independence imo.

Junkyard Tom · 17-10-2019 12:30am

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Most of them come across as total idiots, like Mark Francois and Jacob Rees Mogg.

Jacob Rees Mogg is no idiot, it's worse than that, he's a calculating fanatic. JRM likely views Brexit as his Father's predictions of chaos and opportunity coming true. JRM's Father wrote that:

Societies would splinter. Taxes would be evaded. Government would gradually wither away. "By 2010 or thereabouts," they wrote, welfare states "will simply become unfinanceable". In such a harsh world, only the most talented, self-reliant, technologically adept person – "the sovereign individual" – would thrive.

theguardian.com/books

No doubt JRM is confusing accumulating wealth with talent and self-reliance, just as his Father seems to have. JRM is a guy who is so self-reliant he brought his Nanny canvassing with him - I doubt the guy could change a tyre or wire a plug.

Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

Comments