Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, yes, but that is like saying that a huge crash is the default result of a game of chicken. In practice someone blinks first and dodges the crash, especially when they are in a Mini vs. a bin lorry.

It's not quite like that. In the game of chicken, either side can avoid the crash by taking evasive action. But in the game of Brexit, joint action is required; the crash-out can only be avoided by both sides agreeing to a withdrawal deal. Which is why I say that the UK must develop a consensus around Brexit terms which are acceptable to the EU. Forming a consensus in the UK around Brexit terms which the EU won't accept still ends up in a hard Brexit.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU does not want to see a hard brexit crash out with no deal, so when the UK finally blinks and accepts reality, even if it is last minute stuff, the EU will accommodate whatever delay is needed to get them into a Canada type deal with an exception for NI (or whatever the UK government of the day finally agrees on).

No. The EU won't accept "whatever the UK government of the day finally agrees on"; the EU has its own red lines, and they are well-known.

A "Canada-type deal", as you point out, is not something the EU would accept, since on its own it would not keep the Irish border open. So, as you rightly say, the UK needs to (at a minimum) accept also further terms which would keep the Irish border open.

But it's not enough that the UK government agrees this; they have to get it through parliament, with the possibility of rebellion either by the DUP (if the "further terms to keep the Irish border open" involve treating NI separately from GB) or from the Tory Brexiteers (if the "further terms" apply to the whole of the UK, and are considered to keep the UK too close to the EU).

Which is why I talk about consensus; if HMG can't depend on the DUP and/or the Tory Brexiteers, then they have to find some cross-party support to be sure of getting their Brexit through Parliament. If they fail to do that then, notwithstanding HMG's willingness to come to terms with the EU and Parliament's distaste for a hard Brexit, we'll still end up with a hard Brexit.

In short, it's not enough that the British don't want a hard Brexit; they have to be willing to do what is necessary if a hard Brexit is to be avoided.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU won't accept "whatever the UK government of the day finally agrees on"; the EU has its own red lines, and they are well-known.

A "Canada-type deal", as you point out, is not something the EU would accept, since on its own it would not keep the Irish border open. So, as you rightly say, the UK needs to (at a minimum) accept also further terms which would keep the Irish border open.

I am talking about after the UK blinks - they will (having wasted the entire period of negotiations on infighting) simply have to take something that is on offer from the EU.


Because the alternative is to drive the bus off the cliff, and Parliament won't do that. Even if May is actually mad and wants to, Parliament will not, in the end, allow her to.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am talking about after the UK blinks - they will (having wasted the entire period of negotiations on infighting) simply have to take something that is on offer from the EU.


Because the alternative is to drive the bus off the cliff, and Parliament won't do that. Even if May is actually mad and wants to, Parliament will not, in the end, allow her to.

So, suppose May doesn't blink, and comes to Parliament in October saying "to my lasting regret, I am unable to reach agreement with the EU on a deal which I can recommend to this house. Hard Brexit it is."

What does Parliament do? And, whatever that is, how does it avoid a hard Brexit?

And, scenario 2: May does reach agreement with the EU, but a vote to approve the agreeement is lost because Labour and the SNP whip against it, and there are enough Tory dissenter/DUP votes against it to secure its defeat.

Again, what does Parliament do? And how does that avoid a hard Brexit?

EdgeCase

It’s not really a game of chicken when only one party is engaged in the game.

It’s more like: “this is the HMS Titianic II - we demand you change position! This is Europa 4, we cannot change position. Europa 4: this is a British Naval Vessel - change your position! ..... HMS Titanic II : we have told you repeatedly already- this is a light house! You’re going to crash!!”

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

The thing is that no-deal hard brexit is the default.

Well, yes, but that is like saying that a huge crash is the default result of a game of chicken. In practice someone blinks first and dodges the crash, especially when they are in a Mini vs. a bin lorry.



The EU does not want to see a hard brexit crash out with no deal, so when the UK finally blinks and accepts reality, even if it is last minute stuff, the EU will accommodate whatever delay is needed to get them into a Canada type deal with an exception for NI (or whatever the UK government of the day finally agrees on).

I'd say an analogy more apt would be Britain driving straight at a wall. The eu are not involved in a game of chicken. I say this as a UK resident.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, suppose May doesn't blink, and comes to Parliament in October saying "to my lasting regret, I am unable to reach agreement with the EU on a deal which I can recommend to this house. Hard Brexit it is."

What does Parliament do? And, whatever that is, how does it avoid a hard Brexit?

And, scenario 2: May does reach agreement with the EU, but a vote to approve the agreeement is lost because Labour and the SNP whip against it, and there are enough Tory dissenter/DUP votes against it to secure its defeat.

Again, what does Parliament do? And how does that avoid a hard Brexit?

You're being very generous Peregrinus to assume she'd come to the parliament in October; based on what they been setting up (negotiations will go down to the wire etc.) I'd expect her to go there in late February/mid March. No matter what the parliament wants to do at that stage it will be either to agree to May's deal (what ever it is) or hard crash out as the options on the table (and that's assuming May has got any kind of deal in the first place to put on their table).

LeinsterDub

Nody wrote: »

You're being very generous Peregrinus to assume she'd come to the parliament in October; based on what they been setting up (negotiations will go down to the wire etc.) I'd expect her to go there in late February/mid March. No matter what the parliament wants to do at that stage it will be either to agree to May's deal (what ever it is) or hard crash out as the options on the table (and that's assuming May has got any kind of deal in the first place to put on their table).

The deal has to be approved by 37 assemblies or parliaments IIRC. February is too late.

Any word on the Gibraltar issue? Someone mentioned it here a few dozen pages back.. All eyes on Dublin but not so many on Madrid.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, suppose May doesn't blink, and comes to Parliament in October saying "to my lasting regret, I am unable to reach agreement with the EU on a deal which I can recommend to this house. Hard Brexit it is."

What does Parliament do?

Bring down the Government.

And in the second scenario, Parliament does not reject the best deal on offer.

Your first scenario supposes that Labour cannot defeat a crazy May in parliament, and your second supposes a crazy Labour Party can defeat a sane May.

I see no reason to suppose May or Labour are crazy.

Maybe, maybe the SNP would force a Hard Brexit if they could to bring about Independence, but that would be a very dangerous game as they could just as easily be blamed for the recession in Scotland.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The deal has to be approved by 37 assemblies or parliaments IIRC. February is too late.

No, if the UK come up with a last minute proposal to accept Canada with an NI carve-out and some language on Gibraltar, the EU will punt for 6 months to allow it to be ratified.

Hard Brexit really would be a disaster, and the EU does not want a disaster on their doorstep.

And please don't tell me this course is illegal - the EU will do it anyway and worry about the legalities later.

flatty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The deal has to be approved by 37 assemblies or parliaments IIRC. February is too late.

No, if the UK come up with a last minute proposal to accept Canada with an NI carve-out and some language on Gibraltar, the EU will punt for 6 months to allow it to be ratified.

Hard Brexit really would be a disaster, and the EU does not want a disaster on their doorstep.

And please don't tell me this course is illegal - the EU will do it anyway and worry about the legalities later.

I really hope you are right.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

You're being very generous Peregrinus to assume she'd come to the parliament in October; based on what they been setting up (negotiations will go down to the wire etc.) I'd expect her to go there in late February/mid March. No matter what the parliament wants to do at that stage it will be either to agree to May's deal (what ever it is) or hard crash out as the options on the table (and that's assuming May has got any kind of deal in the first place to put on their table).

In February or March, she doesn't have a deal. Any withdrawal agreement has to be ratified by each of the EU-27, in accordance with their own constitutional processes, and also by the European Parliament, before B-day. Exactly what those constitutional processes will require will depend on the content of the withdrawal agreement. But there's no possibility whatsoever that an agreement concluded in late February/mid March can be fully ratified by all of the EU-27 and the EP the end of March.

That's why everybody has targetted September as the deadline for settling the Withdrawal Agreement, so that it can be ratified by the European Council at its October meeting, and then sent to the member states for individual ratification between November and March.

If they fail to get it done in time for the October European Council, the next European Council is on December 13/14, and if it's signed off then there is at least some chance of ratification before B-day. That's the fallback plan, though nobody will say so publicly at this point.

If they don't make the December Council, the next Council isn't until 21 March, eight days before Brexit day. That's way, way too late.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, if the UK come up with a last minute proposal to accept Canada with an NI carve-out and some language on Gibraltar, the EU will punt for 6 months to allow it to be ratified.

Hard Brexit really would be a disaster, and the EU does not want a disaster on their doorstep.

And please don't tell me this course is illegal - the EU will do it anyway and worry about the legalities later.

It's not illegal - the EU can extend the Art 50 period, provided the EU-27 members agree unanimously to do so. I wouldn't take unanimous agreement for granted, but it's possible and certainly not illegal.

Leroy42

Just a question, just Ireland really want NI to have special status?

If they are in both camps, wouldn't that mean that any FDI would simply locate to NI as it gives them free access to both markets (and the UK is a large market).

Are we not building up massive problems for ourselves with this stance that NI must be open?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Bring down the Government.

In my first scenario, bringing down the government does not avoid a hard Brexit. (Or, if you think it does, you need to say why.)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And in the second scenario, Parliament does not reject the best deal on offer.

You're saying, I think, that my second scenario cannot unfold? Parliament will not reject any deal that May puts before them, regardless of its terms, so long as it avoids a no-deal Brexit?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Your first scenario supposes that Labour cannot defeat a crazy May in parliament . . .

No, they can defeat her - and very easily, in my first scenario. My question how we proceed from bringing down the May government in September 2018 to getting a Withdrawal Agreement in place by March 2019. There are some dots there that you need to join.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

. . . and your second supposes a crazy Labour Party can defeat a sane May.

In my second scenario, May presents a Brexit plan which does not enjoy enough support on her own side of the house, allowing the opposition to defeat her on a matter of confidence.

I don't think an opposition has to be "crazy" to defeat the government. It's what they're desperate to do, most of the time. Given an opportunity to bring down the government, they take it.

Yes, it would likely lead to a hard Brexit. (But, if you think the government's defeat in scenario 1 doesn't lead to a hard Brexit, don't you also think that in scenario 2?) But I think Corbyn's view would be:

(a) The Tories would be blamed for the hard Brexit.

(b) There would be an election and a change of government - probably even before Brexit day.

(c) The Labour government would immediate approach the EU to agree a new relationship which would reverse much of the hard Brexit, unconstrained by mad Brexiter shibboleths about global trade agreements, and without being beholden to the DUP, and we could establish a new relationship with the EU (inc. customs union) which would be much more to our taste than the Tory proposals we had defeated.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a question, just Ireland really want NI to have special status?

If they are in both camps, wouldn't that mean that any FDI would simply locate to NI as it gives them free access to both markets (and the UK is a large market).

Are we not building up massive problems for ourselves with this stance that NI must be open?

Well, it would be even nicer if the whole of Ireland had special status. But that's not realistically obtainable.

It is true that, if just NI gets special status, NI has an edge over RoI in attracting FDI from businesses that want to supply UK and EU. But that's only a part of the total FDI market, and RoI has other advantages - better communications, bigger and better-educated workforce, greater diversity, better governance, etc. So I think we could cope with the competition from NI.
And we'd certainly rather have to cope with that than cope with a hard border.

Call me Al

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it would be even nicer if the whole of Ireland had special status. But that's not realistically obtainable.

It is true that, if just NI gets special status, NI has an edge over RoI in attracting FDI from businesses that want to supply UK and EU. But that's only a part of the total FDI market, and RoI has other advantages - better communications, bigger and better-educated workforce, greater diversity, better governance, etc. So I think we could cope with the competition from NI.
And we'd certainly rather have to cope with that than cope with a hard border.

And it's quite possible DUP members wouldn't relish the thought of an influx of ROI citizens taking up all these new jobs that would become available... that would have significant immediate implications for the demographic profile of the 6 counties.

Leroy42

I think the hard border in NI is overplayed in its effect. No matter what, unless Brexit is reversed of course, we are looking at a hard border with Britain. That is far more concerning to Ireland. Now I get it that we can't do anything about that, apart from hope, and that we are trying to minimise the impact of Brexit in the only way we have any control over.

But I remember thinking we I heard the original December deal that Ireland is basically given over massive advantage to part of the UK. Sure many of us like to think of NI as part of Ireland (if only in the future) but it seems to me a massive concession. Any tax revenues, PAYE etc from FDI that locates to NI will not have any benefit to Ireland. NI could potentially develop as a Luxembourg type state, small but developed perfectly from FDI.

Sure they don't have it now, but neither did we years ago, and you can be sure that the investment would come. Could many of the COL transactions be routed through NI to basically mean that the UK remains in the EU?

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

In February or March, she doesn't have a deal. Any withdrawal agreement has to be ratified by each of the EU-27, in accordance with their own constitutional processes, and also by the European Parliament, before B-day. Exactly what those constitutional processes will require will depend on the content of the withdrawal agreement. But there's no possibility whatsoever that an agreement concluded in late February/mid March can be fully ratified by all of the EU-27 and the EP the end of March.

I'm well aware of that and you are well aware off that but it is not us at the other side of the table but May and the three stooges. The same team that can't understand why they can't have all the benefits of an EU membership while leaving the EU. Hence in their world and reality they can negotiate until the 29th of March when EU will give in to their deals out of fear of a hard brexit being plucky Brits with a stiff upper lip and great cunning. And that is why I'm saying May will go to the parliament at said date for an approval of some sort even though it is way to late in reality simply because they think that's doable. The later the vote; the less chance of it getting voted down after all and as we know May will do anything at all to avoid being pushed out as PM; if that means sinking UKs economy by a hard brexit then so be it. At least ECJ is not going to stop her this time.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a question, just Ireland really want NI to have special status?

If they are in both camps, wouldn't that mean that any FDI would simply locate to NI as it gives them free access to both markets (and the UK is a large market).

Are we not building up massive problems for ourselves with this stance that NI must be open?

I'd look on the longer game though. Maybe they would, but a profitable NI would be a far more attractive reunification from our side. And it's a price worth paying.

Leroy42

flatty wrote: »

I'd look on the longer game though. Maybe they would, but a profitable NI would be a far more attractive reunification from our side. And it's a price worth paying.

Why would a profitable NI want to unify with Ireland and lose its special status? This only drives NI further away.

flatty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a question, just Ireland really want NI to have special status?

If they are in both camps, wouldn't that mean that any FDI would simply locate to NI as it gives them free access to both markets (and the UK is a large market).

Are we not building up massive problems for ourselves with this stance that NI must be open?

Well, it would be even nicer if the whole of Ireland had special status. But that's not realistically obtainable.

It is true that, if just NI gets special status, NI has an edge over RoI in attracting FDI from businesses that want to supply UK and EU. But that's only a part of the total FDI market, and RoI has other advantages - better communications, bigger and better-educated workforce, greater diversity, better governance, etc. So I think we could cope with the competition from NI.
And we'd certainly rather have to cope with that than cope with a hard border.

The arrogance of that statement is breathtaking

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the hard border in NI is overplayed in its effect. No matter what, unless Brexit is reversed of course, we are looking at a hard border with Britain. That is far more concerning to Ireland. Now I get it that we can't do anything about that, apart from hope, and that we are trying to minimise the impact of Brexit in the only way we have any control over.

But I remember thinking we I heard the original December deal that Ireland is basically given over massive advantage to part of the UK. Sure many of us like to think of NI as part of Ireland (if only in the future) but it seems to me a massive concession. Any tax revenues, PAYE etc from FDI that locates to NI will not have any benefit to Ireland. NI could potentially develop as a Luxembourg type state, small but developed perfectly from FDI.

Sure they don't have it now, but neither did we years ago, and you can be sure that the investment would come. Could many of the COL transactions be routed through NI to basically mean that the UK remains in the EU?

I suggest you don't offer that opinion too loudly in many areas of NI, especially Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry.

bolgbui41

Philip Lee, the UK's Justice Minister, has just resigned in order to campaign against the government's Brexit strategy. He's been fairly overtly pro-remain over the last couple of years, and he's calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. Is he the first high-level official to resign for these reasons?

http://www.phillip-lee.com/uncategorized/ministerial-resignation-statement/

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I suggest you don't offer that opinion too loudly in many areas of NI, especially Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry.

True, but we must consider the island as a whole and certainly I am more concerned about Ireland that parts of a foreign country.

I get why this is being done, but to me it simply doesn't makes sense. Ireland will lose out because of Brexit on trade with Britain, nothing we can do about that it was their choice.

But we are seemingly intent on giving massive concessions to NI. The Uk lose nothing out of this (once they get over their pride and nationalistic chest beating). Ireland are paying and both counts it appears to me.

flatty

Leroy42 wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

I'd look on the longer game though. Maybe they would, but a profitable NI would be a far more attractive reunification from our side. And it's a price worth paying.

Why would a profitable NI want to unify with Ireland and lose its special status? This only drives NI further away.

Demographics, I would argue.

Gerry T

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just a question, just Ireland really want NI to have special status?

If they are in both camps, wouldn't that mean that any FDI would simply locate to NI as it gives them free access to both markets (and the UK is a large market).

Are we not building up massive problems for ourselves with this stance that NI must be open?

I'm not sure how the special status would work, If it means that NI will have:

Freedom of movement of people
Regulatory alignment
Some financial contribution (Negative I guess)
Possibly ECJ jurisdiction

Then how can NI have direct access to the UK, the keys that unlock access to the EU are the same that lock the door on the UK, effectively NI would be staying in the EU. Would it not mean FDI setting up in NI would have the same access to the UK as if the FDI company set up in Southern Ireland ?

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

True, but we must consider the island as a whole and certainly I am more concerned about Ireland that parts of a foreign country.

I get why this is being done, but to me it simply doesn't makes sense. Ireland will lose out because of Brexit on trade with Britain, nothing we can do about that it was their choice.

But we are seemingly intent on giving massive concessions to NI. The Uk lose nothing out of this (once they get over their pride and nationalistic chest beating). Ireland are paying and both counts it appears to me.

Well, you're description of NI as "part of a foreign country" is literally correct but ignores the realpolitik. I know you're not being provocative but, frankly, only the DUP and the Little Englanders in the Tory party (and many of those Little Englanders would happily throw NI under the bus) would agree with such a monochrome description. When it comes to NI, identity will be a much more important factor than the economy in the context of any putative hard border be it with the ROI or on the Irish Sea.

Leroy42

That is my reading of the backstop. Basically NI would hold a special status of being both within the EU and the UK.

Ireland would be in the EU, but not the UK.

Britain would have access to NI, but not the EU.

But what is stop a car plant from North England moving to NI? They have access to both markets for a relatively small change. And would any US company, looking to get into the EU, now locate to NI to get access to EU and UK in one rather than set up a separate operation in the UK?

All the while Ireland gets nothing out of the deal, and at the same time has to deal with the fallout from Britain leaving the EU.

Demographics? I really don't see why anyone would vote to leave such a situation. In my scenario, NI prospers. Sure people might move up there, but why would they vote to lose the very key to the prosperity they enjoy (though I admit that asking that question in a Brexit forum seems rather strange!)

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, you're description of NI as "part of a foreign country" is literally correct but ignores the realpolitik. I know you're not being provocative but, frankly, only the DUP and the Little Englanders in the Tory party (and many of those Little Englanders would happily throw NI under the bus) would agree with such a monochrome description. When it comes to NI, identity will be a much more important factor than the economy in the context of any putative hard border be it with the ROI or on the Irish Sea.

I am not trying to be provocative, but I see it might comes across like that. I am not anti-NI or the UK or Ireland. I am neither a nationalist or unionist.

I am trying to work out the potential impact that a backstop deal could have on Ireland. I totally see the benefits to NI (even if the DUP either can't or don't care).

I am also not saying that it isn't the right approach. Maybe it is the best way to minimise the effect of Brexit.

blanch152

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why would a profitable NI want to unify with Ireland and lose its special status? This only drives NI further away.

It is an excellent question, but there are an awful lot of people on this island who are thinking about abstract questions such as unity and getting one over the DUP, rather than on the hard realities of what a Brexit would mean. There were some a few months ago who were delighted with the idea of a hard Brexit as they believed it would increase the chances of unification and had no regard at all to the hardship it would cause North and South.

In a strange way, those nationalists anticipating progress on unity because of Brexit are the exact same as the Little Englanders who voted for Brexit on the basis of taking back control and had little regard for how it would materially affect people on the ground. Ideology over reality.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

That is my reading of the backstop. Basically NI would hold a special status of being both within the EU and the UK.

Correct; they are governed by UK outside of EU but has to follow EU regulations on products, laws etc. In short they would be a hybrid in a sense since EU law is not all encompassing after all.

Ireland would be in the EU, but not the UK.

Correct.

Britain would have access to NI, but not the EU.

In the same way they would have access to rest of EU; all imports would have to conform to EU standards and regulations and be checked as a third party country products would be checked if going into EU anywhere else.

But what is stop a car plant from North England moving to NI? They have access to both markets for a relatively small change. And would any US company, looking to get into the EU, now locate to NI to get access to EU and UK in one rather than set up a separate operation in the UK?

They would be producing to EU standards in NI; if UK diverges they would need to produce two types of products and of course EU certified products are not by default UK certified after Brexit (legislation may end up changing that have UK accept all EU regulations but that's not guaranteed).

All the while Ireland gets nothing out of the deal, and at the same time has to deal with the fallout from Britain leaving the EU.

Ireland don't have to put up a hard border with all the controls that would entail; I'd hardly call that nothing but yes NI gets the better deal overall.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

All the while Ireland gets nothing out of the deal, and at the same time has to deal with the fallout from Britain leaving the EU.

In that scenario we gain a prosperous probably politically more stable neighbour on this island, opportunities for increased trade to supply these new businesses, employment opportunities for those along the border and in the very long term possibly a more sustainable set of public finances in the case of future unity.

If NI developed an export economy on the back of being both in the UK and the EU then the GB market would probably become less important over time as exports grew.

Leroy42

Great responses, it makes more sense to me now.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

It is an excellent question, but there are an awful lot of people on this island who are thinking about abstract questions such as unity and getting one over the DUP, rather than on the hard realities of what a Brexit would mean. There were some a few months ago who were delighted with the idea of a hard Brexit as they believed it would increase the chances of unification and had no regard at all to the hardship it would cause North and South.

In a strange way, those nationalists anticipating progress on unity because of Brexit are the exact same as the Little Englanders who voted for Brexit on the basis of taking back control and had little regard for how it would materially affect people on the ground. Ideology over reality.

And there's the rub. Any change to the status of the border (and by extension de facto to the GFA) will be seen as a 'win' for one side or the other. The corollary being that the other side will see it as a 'loss'.

Leroy42

A minister has just announced his resignation from the government over the handling of Brexit.

Robert Lee (can't say I'd heard of him)

made his shock announcement that he was quitting as a justice minister at the end of a speech on human rights at an event run by the Bright Blue thinktank.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/973027/Brexit-news-minister-resigns-Theresa-May-blow-quits-policy

Squeaky bum time!

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

A minister has just announced his resignation from the government over the handling of Brexit.

Robert Lee (can't say I'd heard of him)

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/973027/Brexit-news-minister-resigns-Theresa-May-blow-quits-policy

Squeaky bum time!

Well he's to run a campaign for a second vote on Brexit (don't know for what organisation) which he can't do from the government position obviously.

FrancieBrady

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And there's the rub. Any change to the status of the border (and by extension de facto to the GFA) will be seen as a 'win' for one side or the other. The corollary being that the other side will see it as a 'loss'.

I think it is entirely fair to say, that all on their own volition, the DUP have set themselves up to win(in their own eyes) or lose here.
The DUP's socially and now economic regressivness has been laid bare either way.
I delight in that, in the same way I delight in any regressive political entity being laid bare.
Of course some will point at nationalists and deride them for 'delighting' in the prospect of unity.
Ignoring that it has always been the belief of nationalists that unity will make life better for all the people of the island.


Personally I think one of the potential gains (albeit, a hard gain) of a Brexit that is a no win for anybody, is the lessening of the dependence the south has on the UK. To change that would be a good silver thing from a bad cloud.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Well he's to run a campaign for a second vote on Brexit (don't know for what organisation) which he can't do from the government position obviously.

Based on his quotes in the article he seems reasonable enough and seems to have thought about it.

Quite a decision to make. His constituency voted to leave, so not only is he given up the job he worked years to get, he also faces a possible fallout in votes.

It is pretty serious for a government minister to resign. Of course it will me minimised but on any other issue for a minister to come out and basically say that the government are doing a bod job is worth nothing.

Red_Wake

How does that leave the government in terms of seats in Parliament?


Iirc they only needed to lose a handful of seats to fall.

Professor Moriarty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think it is entirely fair to say, that all on their own volition, the DUP have set themselves up to win(in their own eyes) or lose here.
The DUP's socially and now economic regressivness has been laid bare either way.
I delight in that, in the same way I delight in any regressive political entity being laid bare.
Of course some will point at nationalists and deride them for 'delighting' in the prospect of unity.
Ignoring that it has always been the belief of nationalists that unity will make life better for all the people of the island.


Personally I think one of the potential gains (albeit, a hard gain) of a Brexit that is a no win for anybody, is the lessening of the dependence the south has on the UK. To change that would be a good silver thing from a bad cloud.

I think our dependency will lessen now regardless of the outcome. This has been a wake up call for Ireland economically and strategically. We have seen how quickly the Tory eurosceptics blamed lack of progress on Ireland and how ready they are to throw peace under the bus. In the same vein, they were happy to threaten our economy if we didn't acquiesce.

Peregrinus

In itself, it's a 3-day wonder. George Bridges, a Minister at DExEU, resigned in June last year because he thought the government's Brexit policy was steaming pile of horse manure. Who remembers that now?

This really only matters if its followed by other resignations, and represents the start of a trend.

Peregrinus

Red_Wake wrote: »

How does that leave the government in terms of seats in Parliament?

No change. Lee is still a Tory MP.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

In itself, it's a 3-day wonder. George Bridges, a Minister at DExEU, resigned in June last year because he thought the government's Brexit policy was steaming pile of horse manure. Who remembers that now?

This really only matters if its followed by other resignations, and represents the start of a trend.

Hammond's resignation would collapse the house of cards.

ArmaniJeanss

Red_Wake wrote: »

How does that leave the government in terms of seats in Parliament?


Iirc they only needed to lose a handful of seats to fall.

No difference, he remains in parliament and would almost certainly vote with the government on any confidence motion.

An Ciarraioch

FDI in NI fell 54% last year:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/northern-ireland-investment-by-foreign-firms-plunges-54-as-brexit-fears-mount-37000228.html

trellheim

Voting starts from around 3 p.m. on Tuesday and the main amendment to watch is number 19. It would give parliament unprecedented power to direct Brexit negotiations if lawmakers reject the divorce deal that May plans to bring back from Brussels in October. It’s known as the meaningful vote amendment.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-12/may-seeks-to-head-off-rebellion-with-hours-to-go-brexit-update

An Ciarraioch

First vote on Bill timetable passes 321-304, suggesting a rebellion of at least 9 MPs would swing more significant motions.

VinLieger

Rumours are someone heard him on the phone just after he announced that others were going to follow suit, the theory is they will wait till closer to the votes to avoid any adjustments to amendments that would negate the impact of resignations.

trellheim

Andy wigmore just said to the DCMS committee that "we gave the Sunday Times those emails" ...... you could not make this up .... Isabel Oakeshott must be like pinocchio at this stage. Carole Cadwalladers twitter is severely fun at the moment.