Brexit discussion thread III

Bar_Prop

Infini wrote: »

All they gotta do is hammer home the DUPs incoherent and regressive policies and how Hard Brexit will wreck the peace and prosperity of the North. Hammer this home long enough and clear enough and build a strong case for reunification (London Ignores the north/Better Representation and influence in the South) and win over enough moderate unionists and a UI becomes a serious possibility.

You underestimate the import of the Ussun v Themmun issue in NI.

The "Give Everyone A Million Quid Tax-Free Party" would fail to gain ground unless it declared its position on the border.

I see no sign of this changing in the near future.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Their manifesto is as trustworthy as the Tory one is. There are many in the DUP who have no probs with a hard border and there is a view it was that wing who marched a very rattled Arlene down the stairs in Stormont

Manifestos are full of incredibly unreal fantasies, and I think both the main parties in the North are guilty of this more than normal parties are.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Got a link?

They are truly disgusting. However, I also need to say that Sinn Fein are no angels either. Our politics are now one of fear, whereby we vote for one to keep the other in check.

Whats worse is to see the younger generation are aligning with these parties too. And so the cycle continues.

I had hopes that things would change with the new generation. Perhaps the failure of both main parties to contribute positively to this crisis will change hearts and minds in the North.

We have seen in the South with FG's resurgence in the last week how positive action benefits your party.

Infini wrote: »

Sinn Feins endgame is a United Ireland. Theyre WELL smart enough to know that if they play this right they could end up with their final goal and it wouldve been handed to them by the Conservatards Idiot Wing.

All they gotta do is hammer home the DUPs incoherent and regressive policies and how Hard Brexit will wreck the peace and prosperity of the North. Hammer this home long enough and clear enough and build a strong case for reunification (London Ignores the north/Better Representation and influence in the South) and win over enough moderate unionists and a UI becomes a serious possibility.

The danger for Sinn Fein in all their inaction through this crisis is that voters at the next election will ask them where they were when they were needed most. Eh, we wanted an Irish Language Act, and we don't like Westminister. Hopefully, their act and the act of the DUP will both be seen through for what they are.

Water John

I suppose from the Westminister DUP POV, Sylvia Herman is the fly in the ointment, to the DUP only, representing Unionism.
I've never seen her attacked by anyone, before.

kowtow

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Yet a other win for the UK in the easiest negotiations of all time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/brexit-uk-fails-to-retain-voice-in-european-court-of-justice

If the UK has only agreed to pay "due regard" to existing ECJ case law, and the referral mechanism is - as reported - purely voluntary, then I am not sure that there is any reason why they should have an ongoing involvement at the ECJ? How would the presence of an advocate-general help them with prior case law?

Leroy42

blanch152 wrote: »

The danger for Sinn Fein in all their inaction through this crisis is that voters at the next election will ask them where they were when they were needed most. Eh, we wanted an Irish Language Act, and we don't like Westminister. Hopefully, their act and the act of the DUP will both be seen through for what they are.

I can't recall where I read it but I read that point. Whilst the DUP are actively looking after their constituents, SF appear to be totally silent. If, at least, the assembly was running then a NI position could be arrived at rather than allowing the DUP free reign.

But SF have seemingly decided that Irish Language is more important than the future of both NI and Ireland and stayed off the pitch.

I don't disagree that they should have principles for which they stand up for, in this case the equality of the Irish Language, but sometimes events overtake you and you need to refocus.

It's all well and good all those claiming that by staying quiet they are allowing the DUP to destroy themselves, but that really isn't what a public rep is elected for. They are elected to voice their views to which you agree.

Bar_Prop

Water John wrote: »

I suppose from the Westminister DUP POV, Sylvia Herman is the fly in the ointment, to the DUP only, representing Unionism.
I've never seen her attacked by anyone, before.

First time I recall her getting abuse for being "in league with Dublin" but she's had the "urban elite" thing hurled at her in the past.

McMurphy

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Got a link?

They are truly disgusting. However, I also need to say that Sinn Fein are no angels either. Our politics are now one of fear, whereby we vote for one to keep the other in check.

Whats worse is to see the younger generation are aligning with these parties too. And so the cycle continues.

I'm on my phone out on site with work, bit but was on the pat Kenny show this morning, approx 0930 or so.

Bar_Prop

Leroy42 wrote: »

But SF have seemingly decided that Irish Language is more important than the future of both NI and Ireland and stayed off the pitch.

They've very little choice, they cannot go back to Stormont without one of an Irish Language Act or the political head of Arlene Foster.

They're up against the element of their own support that seemingly believes the "other side" have got more from the GFA than they have. Who in Eamon McCann's party have a much more readily transferable alternative than is true of the DUP to UUP or even TUV vote on t'other side.

jobbridge4life

Leroy42 wrote: »

I can't recall where I read it but I read that point. Whilst the DUP are actively looking after their constituents, SF appear to be totally silent. If, at least, the assembly was running then a NI position could be arrived at rather than allowing the DUP free reign.

But SF have seemingly decided that Irish Language is more important than the future of both NI and Ireland and stayed off the pitch.

I don't disagree that they should have principles for which they stand up for, in this case the equality of the Irish Language, but sometimes events overtake you and you need to refocus.

It's all well and good all those claiming that by staying quiet they are allowing the DUP to destroy themselves, but that really isn't what a public rep is elected for. They are elected to voice their views to which you agree.

I don't understand the argument against Sinn Fein here. An Irish Language Act is part of the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. This is not a matter for debate. The DUP have refused to allow such an Act. The DUP also grossly abused the GFA to block same sex marriage in Northern Ireland after the Stormant Assembly voted by a majority to allow it. The two Governments should have forced the DUP to adhere to the GFA long ago. Now that there is direct rule from London, TM should force an Irish Language Act on them. I literally do not understand why Sinn Fein and by extension the nationalist population should have to just accept the bigoted obstinance of the DUP in breach of the GFA. Especially given the thinly veiled contempt that party holds for both the nationalist community in the North and the RoI.

As for the position in regards to Westminister, I'd have more sympathy for the argument that Sinn Fein should take their seats if it would make a difference but it won't. Even with SF in parliament the DUP still hold the balance of power. It also should be remembered that just because SF don't sit in parliament they do work on behalf of their constituents over there.

Water John

The SF/DUP ding dong is largely a side issue.

Bar_Prop

Water John wrote: »

The SF/DUP ding dong is largely a side issue.

Yes apologies, different topic.

kowtow

There is another fuller version of the proposed text kicking around today, partly quoted I think in the Guardian link above. It deals with the ECJ / Citizen issue and with the financial package.

The 40bn is said to be (a) not a lump sum and (b) explicitly linked to the trade deal (i.e. it could go down or up)

The ECJ referral is voluntary (? if it is still there) and "due regard to prior case law"

The border / regulatory alignment wording was left out of the article.

If - as I still suspect - the Irish border part is described as a fallback ("absent other agreement") and limited to the GFA areas of co-operation, in other words if the text on Monday ends up being substantially agreed, then that would explain why both May and Davis have been unusually brazen in the commons over the last couple of days. She's still presiding over a complete b****ger's muddle but she will have delivered what she is supposed to deliver - i.e. a move to trade talks with her options still open.

She also has - rather neatly - a balanced set of rebels on each side of the Tory party each writing angry letters. Clowns to the left of her, and jokers to the right...

Only history will tell us just how close we actually came this week - either to signing a first stage agreement, or to losing one - but something tells me May feels it is going well enough, all things considered.

It is equally true that all her eggs are in one delicately balanced basket. If the agreement does fall apart, and that can - to my mind - only be over the border, then total chaos will ensue and I can't see any way she can hang on.

LeinsterDub

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/uk-has-48-hours-to-agree-potential-deal-or-brexit-talks-cannot-progress


Another deadline,a little over 48 hours.

ArthurDayne

http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-responds-to-baes-announcement-of-400-job-losses-in-brough/
Incredible that David Davis, on his own website, talks about the loss of 400 jobs at the BAE facility in Brough and how terrible it is.  Even though a quick check on Google does not appear to suggest that the company's decision was Brexit-related, it rings incredibly hollow to see a man like Davis comiserate workers for losing their jobs (and indeed criticise the company for making the cuts) when he -- as Brexit Minister -- has commissoned no formal assessment on the sectoral impact of Brexit and the risk to the livelihoods of those who, in this article, he purports to defend and care about.

Zubeneschamali

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I never knew that Paisley once had to be thrown out of the European parliament because he launched a barrage of abuse at the pope back in 1988?

Even better - one of the people who threw him out was Karl von Hapsburg, the heir to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian empire!

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/06/uk-has-48-hours-to-agree-potential-deal-or-brexit-talks-cannot-progress


Another deadline,a little over 48 hours.

I get the feeling this is gonna be it one way or another and the brits are gonna drop the ball on this.

kowtow

I reckon when people start throwing deadlines out in public - especially ones that move closer - it means we are at the vinegar strokes.

Agreement before the weekend, perhaps.

ancapailldorcha

Just like English Common Law permeated many societies around the world, EU regulation seems to be doing the same thing ironically. Many countries outside the EU seem to be adopting EU regulations with US and EU-style regulatory frameworks battling for global dominance. From the Financial Times:

One of the most striking features of Britain’s looming departure from the EU is its potential as an indicator of how the battle for regulatory supremacy between the EU and the US is faring.

When the UK finally exits the EU, it will discover that the government’s beliefs that it can leave behind the EU’s regulatory straitjacket to launch itself freely into the world trading system are very much mistaken. Not only will it have to keep complying with EU rules to sell into the continental European market, but in some cases the UK will have to choose which of the mutually incompatible sets of EU and US regulations it wants to adhere to in order to trade.

...Even more galling for US policymakers is that because companies find it much cheaper to run one compliance system than two, some multinationals adhere to EU regulation even when their operations are outside Europe and the US.

NIMAN

kowtow wrote: »

I reckon when people start throwing deadlines out in public - especially ones that move closer - it means we are at the vinegar strokes.

Agreement before the weekend, perhaps.

I just wonder how May is going to buy the DUP over?

It'll have to be something special.

road_high

ArthurDayne wrote: »

http://www.daviddavismp.com/david-davis-mp-responds-to-baes-announcement-of-400-job-losses-in-brough/
Incredible that David Davis, on his own website, talks about the loss of 400 jobs at the BAE facility in Brough and how terrible it is.  Even though a quick check on Google does not appear to suggest that the company's decision was Brexit-related, it rings incredibly hollow to see a man like Davis comiserate workers for losing their jobs (and indeed criticise the company for making the cuts) when he -- as Brexit Minister -- has commissoned no formal assessment on the sectoral impact of Brexit and the risk to the livelihoods of those who, in this article, he purports to defend and care about.

You can be damn sure it's not helping companies like this...they are terrified of uncertainty and potential tariffs. The spring will be rough in England if this isn't sorted soon.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I guess the possibility of Ireland and the DUP being heroes is still on the cards.. If Ireland, by threatening its use of a veto, and the DUP, by insisting on same standards across the UK, end up forcing the UK into a very soft Brexit that would make trade as easy as possible, it would be a strange turn of events that millions in the UK would be thankful for.

Get out of my head man, I just said that to someone a couple of hours ago.

Bar_Prop

road_high wrote: »

You can be damn sure it's not helping companies like this...they are terrified of uncertainty and potential tariffs. The spring will be rough in England if this isn't sorted soon.

Brough's problem is being reliant on continued sales of Hawk, which despite some world class upgrading through it's production life is rapidly becoming yesterdays aircraft.

The UK's position relative to the EU is irrelevant in this particular case.

kowtow

NIMAN wrote: »

I just wonder how May is going to buy the DUP over?

It'll have to be something special.

Maybe not.

I still think it's possible that they went off on one when they read the RTE tweets - well, half of the tweets, and got spooked by the media spin which kicked up on Monday morning. The most complete version of the text on Monday was perfectly defensible from their point of view, from a couple of different angles.

It's possible that May, Leo, and the EU have just had to spend the week whistling to themselves and making gestures so that the rearranged text, when presented, can be shown to have been a meaningful response to the DUP hard line, basically so Arlene saves face.

Unless someone more important has got upset in the meantime!

funkey_monkey

Hopefully that is the case. Otherwise, if it more than small tweaks required, then I'm a bit more gloomy about the outcome.

kowtow

Likewise, by way of a tangent, I note Martin Schulz is calling for an integrated "United States of Europe" by 2025

A convention shall draft this treaty in close cooperation with the civil society and the people. Its results will then be submitted to all member states. Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.

Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit positions on this thread, I'm interested to take the temperature of people's responses to this. I suspect that (1) It is red meat thrown to a party conference, and may or will never happen (2) He has been saying this for ages and (3) Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway are all valid reactions to his typically frank interjection.

His comments - and their timing - will be welcome to many on the Leave side in the UK, but it does strike me that just as we accuse the UK of "not knowing what it wants from Brexit" it is a pretty sure bet that not being part of a United States of Europe would be common ground amongst most voters. It's also fair, I think, to make the observation that at this point Europe does not know what it wants from Europe, either.

I do wonder whether it wouldn't be cheaper for the UK to hang on until 2025 and be automatically expelled?

Bar_Prop

I would tend towards European federalism.

Frankly I tend towards global federalism but you might say it's on a bit of a long finger.

Zubeneschamali

kowtow wrote: »

[quoting Shultz]Any state that won’t ratify this treaty will automatically leave the EU.

Eh, no.

Chips Lovell

Off-topic posts deleted. This discussion is about Brexit, not Ukraine.

Professor Moriarty

kowtow wrote: »

Maybe not.

I still think it's possible that they went off on one when they read the RTE tweets - well, half of the tweets, and got spooked by the media spin which kicked up on Monday morning. The most complete version of the text on Monday was perfectly defensible from their point of view, from a couple of different angles.

It's possible that May, Leo, and the EU have just had to spend the week whistling to themselves and making gestures so that the rearranged text, when presented, can be shown to have been a meaningful response to the DUP hard line, basically so Arlene saves face.

Unless someone more important has got upset in the meantime!

Sinn Féin are playing a blinder. Speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, no.

This.

There’s no mechanism in the EU Treaties for expelling a member state. Any amendment to the treaties to permit this would require the unanimous agreement of the member states.

Schulz is displaying Brexiter-level ignorance of the legal and political realities here.

Bar_Prop

Peregrinus wrote: »

This.

There’s no mechanism in the EU Treaties for expelling a member state.

They can be suspended though, without necessarily being given a duration.

That might be Article 7, I don't recall.

Water John

Recent poll showed, only a small % of EU pop wanted Federal Integration. It's not popular, but they keep shoving it, at us.

ambro25

kowtow wrote: »

Likewise, by way of a tangent, I note Martin Schulz is calling for an integrated "United States of Europe" by 2025 <...>

Proof positive that Brextremism has an opposite on the EU membership spectrum.

kowtow wrote: »

Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit positions on this thread, I'm interested to take the temperature of people's responses to this.

Opposites bracketing acceptable normality is good for debating balance

Peregrinus wrote:

There’s no mechanism in the EU Treaties for expelling a member state. Any amendment to the treaties to permit this would require the unanimous agreement of the member states.

But in the context of Schulz' noises, even if they somehow materialised, it's a redundant issue, given the <actual> 29 March 2019 Brexiting deadline and the <notional> 29 March 2021 transitioning deadline.

Peregrinus wrote:

Schulz is displaying Brexiter-level ignorance of the legal and political realities here.

That he is. But let's not forget that he's also, demonstrably, a longer-sighted and shrewder political operator than Theresa May...

...and could certain pro-federalisation parties, having a vested interest in 'punishing' the UK to help promote the polar opposite of the EU integration model, stand to gain from opportunistically and vigorously stirring the pot of proverbial stuff in which Ms May has been bathing, lately up to her hair roots, to secure a 'harder' form of Brexit? Pope, funny hat, bears, woods <etc.>

kowtow

ambro25 wrote: »

...and could certain pro-federalisation parties, having a vested interest in 'punishing' the UK to help promote the polar opposite of the EU integration model, stand to gain from opportunistically and vigorously stirring the pot of proverbial stuff in which Ms May has been bathing, lately up to her hair roots, to secure a 'harder' form of Brexit? Pope, funny hat, bears, woods <etc.>

That thought did cross my mind.

Still, there's a lot of water between here and 2025. Not to mention a rather bulky ECB balance sheet.

An Ciarraioch

kowtow wrote: »

Likewise, by way of a tangent, I note Martin Schulz is calling for an integrated "United States of Europe" by 2025



Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit positions on this thread, I'm interested to take the temperature of people's responses to this. I suspect that (1) It is red meat thrown to a party conference, and may or will never happen (2) He has been saying this for ages and (3) Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway are all valid reactions to his typically frank interjection.

His comments - and their timing - will be welcome to many on the Leave side in the UK, but it does strike me that just as we accuse the UK of "not knowing what it wants from Brexit" it is a pretty sure bet that not being part of a United States of Europe would be common ground amongst most voters. It's also fair, I think, to make the observation that at this point Europe does not know what it wants from Europe, either.

I do wonder whether it wouldn't be cheaper for the UK to hang on until 2025 and be automatically expelled?

As you suspect, he is literally "preaching to the converted" on this given topic, and if the polls are any indication, he's highly unlikely to even become Chancellor in the near future, let alone implement such a policy. Most EU decision-making occurs within the Council of Ministers and the European Council, where national governments dominate, and given the Eurosceptic bent of Poland, Czechia, and Hungary, agreeing a vision with universal support is extremely remote at present.

Zerbini Blewitt

kowtow wrote: »

Likewise, by way of a tangent, I note Martin Schulz is calling for an integrated "United States of Europe" by 2025

Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit positions on this thread, I'm interested to take the temperature of people's responses to this. I suspect that (1) It is red meat thrown to a party conference, and may or will never happen (2) He has been saying this for ages and (3) Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway are all valid reactions to his typically frank interjection.

My answer is also none of your three suggested answers.

That is Herr Schulz view and he is therefore one of the roughly 8 to 15% of EU theoreticians & politicians who may be (or are in fact) hardcore federalists (i.e. a small minority).

But even if this plan was proposed:- almost all of the (smaller) EU 27 national head of governments would reject it in less than a half nanosecond (100% for certain in Ireland’s case).

The notion of a (small) country being dragged into fundamental constitutional change against the consent of its government - is the exact opposite to the principle of co-operation & consent that the EU is built on.

I agree, Brexiters will probably be spooked further by (their interpretations of) this report.

However, this latter interpretation (not yours) highlights again -where it really matters - the reality of the Brexiter & general EU-28 eurosceptic myth of the ‘democratic deficit’ in all its true fabricated or ignorant, cringeworthy glory.

An Ciarraioch

Interestingly, the Dáil has voted to join PESCO - could be referred to Michael D for ruling, yet, given Article 29.4.9:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland#Changes

Junkyard Tom

FG taking polling points from FF and it's being attributed to Leo and Coveny standing their ground with the British/DUP on the border.

Oh how things have changed.

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

Recent poll showed, only a small % of EU pop wanted Federal Integration. It's not popular, but they keep shoving it, at us.

They can keep at that but there's no way all EU27 parliament (and the requisite regional assemblies) will ever go for it in before 2030 at the very earliest.

Kermit.de.frog

Breaking: Donald Tusk to make Brexit statement at 6:50 am tomorrow.

Deal done?

Consonata

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Breaking: Donald Tusk to make Brexit statement at 6:50 am tomorrow.

Deal done?

Source?

the untitled user

Consonata wrote: »

Source?

Reuters: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-tusk-statement/eus-tusk-to-make-brexit-statement-on-friday-at-0650-gmt-idUKKBN1E12J6

murphaph

the untitled user wrote: »

Reuters: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-tusk-statement/eus-tusk-to-make-brexit-statement-on-friday-at-0650-gmt-idUKKBN1E12J6

Intriguing stuff.

Kermit.de.frog

Just before the markets open. Seems like a deal to me.

kowtow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Breaking: Donald Tusk to make Brexit statement at 6:50 am tomorrow.

Deal done?

He expects it to be market sensitive then.

Kermit.de.frog

The deal is done in my opinion. If it was bad news they'd get it out of the way tonight.

Kermit.de.frog

Maybe not...

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/938833026099838977

kowtow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The deal is done in my opinion. If it was bad news they'd get it out of the way tonight.

I think it is. A lot of things point to some serious behind the scenes work in London to keep it together this week - not least the way they let David Davis off the hook yesterday. Both Davis and May have actually appeared quite confident given the situation around them and that has to suggest that Monday was more of an awkward blip. Remember, Downing St. was actually careful not to call it a deal on Monday and May had always said "before the end of the week".. while almost everyone else (including Leo & Co - who IMO have been quite deserving of it given the circumstances) have been able to make themselves look pivotal in front of their own audiences.

Tomorrow might be Theresa May's turn. God Love her, she deserves a win whether you like her or loathe her.

NIMAN

DUP bought off?

How?

Calina

She does not deserve a win. The Cabinet has not even decided what Brexit outcome they want per Philip Hammond yesterday.