Brexit discussion thread III

Chips Lovell

The UK has already said it doesn't want access to the single market.

First Up

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The UK has already said it doesn't want access to the single market.

No, it doesn't want to be part of the SM but it does want access to it.

Chips Lovell

There is no such thing though. Nobody has "access". They are either members of it or they are not.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I should have added the disclaimer: I know its nonsense. I've just become fascinated by actually reading the press in the UK, particularly the pro Brexit sections of the media. I always knew they were pushing a nationalist agenda over the past few years but it was only after Brexit passed that I became an avid reader. It truly is fascinating and it serves to explain how we've got here.

Absolutely. In a sense it's hilarious and compelling but it's only when reading it knowing what we know that the complete absurdism of it is so plain. They probably never really had to push so far before but it shows just how much they're completely fine with pushing an agenda and narrative and likely have been for decades.

Zubeneschamali

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There is no such thing though.

Mere reality is no obstacle to Brexit.

NY2018

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There is no such thing though. Nobody has "access". They are either members of it or they are not.

There is.

Canada, amongst others, have limited access under strict conditions.

I assume you mean to say that unrestricted access for non-members doesn't exist.

NY2018

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I should have added the disclaimer: I know its nonsense. I've just become fascinated by actually reading the press in the UK, particularly the pro Brexit sections of the media. I always knew they were pushing a nationalist agenda over the past few years but it was only after Brexit passed that I became an avid reader. It truly is fascinating and it serves to explain how we've got here.

I think it serves as a stark warning to the rest of us - the press have an immense power to do untold damage to a country.

I would be in favour of some type of control that doesn't impinge on freedom of speech - which is obviously very tricky to achieve.

Maybe an independent international control unit that can place sanctions on media that engage in clear and obvious propaganda to push agendas that can adversely shape the future of a country.

It's probably pie in the sky thinking and near impossible to do it whilst simultaneously upholding freedom of speech - but what has happened in Britain with the hard right press cannot be ignored.

You seem to have a great interest in the influence of the press on Brexit - I think this Newsnight report will fascinate you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQ9VrK1S3w

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

As I see it, the UK lack of preparedness for a no-deal Brexit isn't an accident or mistake that now ties their hands; its the outcome of the fact that, rhetoric aside, they have never seriously contemplated a no-deal Brexit. It would be disastrous. They know this.

They pretend to be willing to walk away because, basically, if they are believed that should strengthen their negotiating hand. They used to say that "no deal is better than a bad deal", but the truth is that they cannot imagine a deal so bad that that it would be worse than no deal.

Still, this strategy could backfire. When they started it, they were still woefully ignorant and believed that a somewhat cakeist Brexit was attainable, so they would get a deal which was at least modestly cakeist. It now becomes apparent that no cakeist deal is likely, so they deal they are going to have to accept is a deal which those who take "no deal is better than a bad deal" seriously would regard as a bad deal. So the wheels could still come off this strategy quite badly if, despite what they intend, they are forced by the Tory brexity minority to embrace the no-deal Brexit that they never seriously contemplated embracing.

I think the biggest problem if the strategy is to pretend you are going for a no-deal Brexit is that you actually convince people in the UK that it is a viable option. How happy are people going to be when they believe the UK should just leave and get out, because that is what their MPs are telling them should happen, and the end result is a deal where they still pay for access every year and have to follow some rules and regulations from the EU as a result?

This strategy from some Tories is in danger of allowing the resurgence of UKIP. The way to destroy UKIP is to have a complete break from the EU. They will be gone as there won't be any MEPs and they don't have any MPs. But if you convince people the best result is no relationship with the EU, or very hands off at best, and the result is a very close relationship (which is the least damaging) then UKIP will fill the void again and will take votes again.

seamus

NY2018 wrote: »

I’m unsure what you mean here.

It is my understanding that if the EU were to give the UK special treatment, ie. a good free trade deal and access to single market that this would hugely benefit Ireland. I’m not sure how we’d be a sacrificial lamb in such a scenario (aside from paying a higher amount into EU budget to compensate for UK discontinued contribution)

It would be a political disaster for the EU as a whole, which is why it should not and will not happen, but it would be hugely beneficial to Ireland as we would maintain frictionless trade with our biggest trading partner.

I’m unsure how you could characterise us as a sacrificial lamb in such a scenario.

"Sacrificial lamb" in terms of abandoning the border question. If the EU were to turn around and decide that the border question is not that important - that the UK could put in a hard border and still get a deal - then that's illustrating that it's willing to ignore the red lines issues of member states in order to accomodate unreasonable trade partners.

And this signals to all EU nations that they cannot rely on the union to treat them as equals when the union faces difficult situations.

Whether economically it would be beneficial to Ireland is somewhat irrelevant. In order for the UK to get their way we'd need either a hard border with the North, or a customs border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Neither of which are beneficial to Ireland in the long run, and by extension would begin the breakup of the EU since any aim of tighter integration becomes politically and economically impossible.

Enzokk

NY2018 wrote: »

I think it serves as a stark warning to the rest of us - the press have an immense power to do untold damage to a country.

I would be in favour of some type of control that doesn't impinge on freedom of speech - which is obviously very tricky to achieve.

Maybe an independent international control unit that can place sanctions on media that engage in clear and obvious propaganda to push agendas that can adversely shape the future of a country.

It's probably pie in the sky thinking and near impossible to do it whilst simultaneously upholding freedom of speech - but what has happened in Britain with the hard right press cannot be ignored.

You seem to have a great interest in the influence of the press on Brexit - I think this Newsnight report will fascinate you.

I think the way to ensure that there isn't undue influence is to have mechanisms in place to ensure that lies are shown to be lies and there to be punitive penalties for wrongdoing. At the moment there is no real consequences for newspapers when they lie. They print a small correction when they have to if they print a misleading headline/story on the front page. What they should do is have a front page story about their mistake and people would not miss it. You cannot expect the press to regulate themselves. It will not work and I don't know of examples where a industry regulating itself has actually been effective. There is no incentive for this.

The hacking scandal has changed nothing because MPs didn't want to change anything. You have the same owners still in charge of their newspapers acting with impunity and having some control over MPs with the threat of scandal stories on their front pages.

First Up

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There is no such thing though. Nobody has "access". They are either members of it or they are not.

Access simply means being able to sell into it. The UK would like to be able to do so without tarrifs or other restrictions but without any of the obligations that go with membership. Part of the cake and eat it approach.

NY2018

seamus wrote: »

"Sacrificial lamb" in terms of abandoning the border question. If the EU were to turn around and decide that the border question is not that important - that the UK could put in a hard border and still get a deal - then that's illustrating that it's willing to ignore the red lines issues of member states in order to accomodate unreasonable trade partners.

And this signals to all EU nations that they cannot rely on the union to treat them as equals when the union faces difficult situations.

Whether economically it would be beneficial to Ireland is somewhat irrelevant. In order for the UK to get their way we'd need either a hard border with the North, or a customs border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

Neither of which are beneficial to Ireland in the long run, and by extension would begin the breakup of the EU since any aim of tighter integration becomes politically and economically impossible.

OK, that's clearer.


Ultimately, I think the UK government will accept full North/South alignment and a border in the Irish Sea to get a deal - this will be acceptable to the EU and Ireland. The reality is they actually don't care all that much about Northern Ireland and it certainly is not worth risking a catastrophic no deal outcome for them.

The DUP obviously complicate this, but not as much as we might think for two reasons.

1) As crunch time comes closer and the facts become clearer, it will become increasingly harder for the DUP to maintain it's ideological red lines at the expense of economic and social chaos in the North.

2) If they bring the Tories down, they lose concessions achieved via the coalition and they risk the real possibility of an Irish Republican/IRA sympathiser gaining power - a prospect that terrifies them.

Skedaddle

The issue in the UK is even more complicated, as you've had pretty much what could be described as political system capture by the tabloids.

When a newspaper backs a political party or adopts a political campaign, it ceases the to be a newspaper and becomes a party newsletter or propeganda rag. If journalists want to push a single point of view and campaign politically, they should stand for office as they need to maintain objectivity to be a real journalist.

It's absolutely an appalling undermining of real journalism when publications do that and it's something the likes of the NUJ needs to stand up against, as it's badly devalued the whole profession of journalism.

The problem in the UK is that nobody in either journalism or politics was ever prepared to stand up and say that it is wrong and unacceptable for newspapers or any supposedly mainstream media outlet to behave like that. Instead, they continue to pretend it's normal and the political parties pander to the media moguls and editors.

seamus

NY2018 wrote: »

OK, that's clearer.


Ultimately, I think the UK government will accept full North/South alignment and a border in the Irish Sea to get a deal - this will be acceptable to the EU and Ireland. The reality is they actually don't care all that much about Northern Ireland and it certainly is not worth risking a catastrophic no deal outcome for them.

The DUP obviously complicate this, but not as much as we might think for two reasons.

1) As crunch time comes closer and the facts become clearer, it will become increasingly harder for the DUP to maintain it's ideological red lines at the expense of economic and social chaos in the North.

2) If they bring the Tories down, they lose concessions achieved via the coalition and they risk the real possibility of an Irish Republican/IRA sympathiser gaining power - a prospect that terrifies them.

This is my thought too.

I'm not sure if the DUP will allow any such deal to happen; they're far too dogmatic to do the pragmatic thing.

But I do feel a crunch will arise where an Irish Sea border is the only game in town, the DUP will bring down the UK government rather than agree to it, and then whoever takes over after that will fast-track whatever deal is on the table in order to save their country.

Skedaddle

Think about it from the DUP's point of view: they've nothing to lose by collapsing the British government. It would show them to be hard-line defenders of their own political community.

I can't really see why anyone would assume that a party as dogmatic about this one issue would ever compromise. They're not a normal political party nor are they part of normal, mainstream UK politics. They exist in the parallel universe of Northern Irish sectarian politics.

For them, a return to the status quo of EU membership is also not really a problem. There isn't any hardcore Brexit support in NI like there is in England. So politically, they'll just ride the Tories for as long as they can get away with it and if the road gets too bumpy, they just jump off and take the moral high ground claiming to be defendintg the union or even being pragmatists

NY2018

Skedaddle wrote: »

The issue in the UK is even more complicated, as you've had pretty much what could be described as political system capture by the tabloids.

When a newspaper backs a political party or adopts a political campaign, it ceases the to be a newspaper and becomes a party newsletter or propeganda rag. If journalists want to push a single point of view and campaign politically, they should stand for office as they need to maintain objectivity to be a real journalist.

It's absolutely an appalling undermining of real journalism when publications do that and it's something the likes of the NUJ needs to stand up against, as it's badly devalued the whole profession of journalism.

The problem in the UK is that nobody in either journalism or politics was ever prepared to stand up and say that it is wrong and unacceptable for newspapers or any supposedly mainstream media outlet to behave like that. Instead, they continue to pretend it's normal and the political parties pander to the media moguls and editors.

The 'cake and eat it' euphemism comes into play here.

In order for your (noble) proposal to work, it would need politicians to not use the media to build relationships in order to push their agendas. The vast majority do this, which is why they can't cry foul when they're on the losing side. It would require a complete overhaul with regards how politics is conducted.

NY2018

seamus wrote: »

This is my thought too.

I'm not sure if the DUP will allow any such deal to happen; they're far too dogmatic to do the pragmatic thing.

But I do feel a crunch will arise where an Irish Sea border is the only game in town, the DUP will bring down the UK government rather than agree to it, and then whoever takes over after that will fast-track whatever deal is on the table in order to save their country.

I also think the prospect of a referendum on the deal (with the option to remain) will hugely increase in this scenario.

Maybe this is the end game that the EU is aiming for.

Skedaddle

NY2018 wrote: »

The 'cake and eat it' euphemism comes into play here.

In order for your (noble) proposal to work, it would need politicians to not use the media to build relationships in order to push their agendas. The vast majority do this, which is why they can't cry foul when they're on the losing side. It would require a complete overhaul with regards how politics is conducted.

Well if you're a journalist and you're working for a newspaper that actually calls for people to vote for particular parties or particular ways in referenda, you're a copywriter for a propeganda organisation and you should hand in your press card and stop pretending and join a PR company instead.

A lot of this is about extremely low standards in print journalism in the UK. it's caused huge political problems and it's a total corruption of the press. It even undermines public trust in journalism.

I just think it's beyond time that British journalists actually stood in front of a mirror and took some pride in what it is to be a journalist. It's a noble profession when you take it seriously and it plays a very important role in democracy.

I've worked as a journalist and you typically try to understand an issue and you really do try to explore it from as many sides as you possibly can. At least, you do if you're taking the job seriously and actually think it's worth doing! Plenty of people just copy the press release to fill space.

Zubeneschamali

NY2018 wrote: »

Maybe this is the end game that the EU is aiming for.

It could even be the endgame May is aiming for: delay, let Boris waffle on, and then agree a CU deal at the last minute, too late for a Brexiteer to get into #10 and grab the reins.

If the DUP/Brexiteers bring down the government, they know Corbyn will agree something even less Brexity.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It could even be the endgame May is aiming for: delya, ley Boris waffle on, and then agree a CU deal at the last minute, too late for a Brexiteer to get into #10 and grab the reins.

If the DUP/Brexiteers bring down the government, they know Corbyn will agree something even less Brexity.

Unless she has an agreement with the EU negotiators to make this happen, surely the time it will take the EU to ratify this deal will be enough for the right wing Tories to vote her out and get a new leader in to reverse this deal?

BonnieSituation

Skedaddle wrote: »

Think about it from the DUP's point of view: they've nothing to lose by collapsing the British government. It would show them to be hard-line defenders of their own political community.

I can't really see why anyone would assume that a party as dogmatic about this one issue would ever compromise. They're not a normal political party nor are they part of normal, mainstream UK politics. They exist in the parallel universe of Northern Irish sectarian politics.

For them, a return to the status quo of EU membership is also not really a problem. There isn't any hardcore Brexit support in NI like there is in England. So politically, they'll just ride the Tories for as long as they can get away with it and if the road gets too bumpy, they just jump off and take the moral high ground claiming to be defendintg the union or even being pragmatists

You give the Dupers to much credit here. They're as flip-floppy as they come. They cave on everything eventually.

They're not the sharpest tacks in the box, they have to just satisfy a debased base of voters who don't care for detail ad only want to seen to be "better" than Taigs. That's all they have to do to appeal.

There's a rift opening up between the Westminster wing and the Assembly wing of the party. It will be interesting. The heat is going to be too much for them to handle soon with Brexit. They'll jump.

NY2018

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It could even be the endgame May is aiming for: delya, ley Boris waffle on, and then agree a CU deal at the last minute, too late for a Brexiteer to get into #10 and grab the reins.

I'd like to think that might be the case but I'm afraid her hard Brexit rhetoric and her decision to call a snap election last year to strengthen her hand to pursue that policy undermines that theory.

Besides, such a strategy would require a certain amount of foresight and competence!

NY2018

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You give the Dupers to much credit here. They're as flip-floppy as they come. They cave on everything eventually.

They're not the sharpest tacks in the box, they have to just satisfy a debased base of voters who don't care for detail ad only want to seen to be "better" than Taigs. That's all they have to do to appeal.

There's a rift opening up between the Westminster wing and the Assembly wing of the party. It will be interesting. The heat is going to be too much for them to handle soon with Brexit. They'll jump.

From what I've read, there's quite a division within the DUP party. They have a number of MPs based in Northern Ireland who are genuinely worried about the future of the North both economically and socially - and they would probably be willing to be pragmatic and sensible.

Then you have the ideological zealots, many of whom are in bed with the hard Brexiteers in Westminster.

BonnieSituation

NY2018 wrote: »

From what I've read, there's quite a division within the DUP party. They have a number of MPs out of work MLAs based in Northern Ireland who are genuinely worried about the future of the North both economically and socially - and they would probably be willing to be pragmatic and sensible.

Then you have the ideological zealots, many of whom are in bed with the hard Brexiteers in Westminster.

FYP.

Precisely the divide I was referring to.

Leroy42

Why is there is constant refrain that May is somehow plotting a soft Brexit. Apart from her lukewarm remain bit in the ref. she has shown nothing to indicate that she is minded that way, in fact most of statements have been in regards to a hard brexit.

Couple that with the fact that a large portion of her cabinet are vocal on Brexit, for example Boris speech the other day, which are clearly part of a government policy.

May is driving this, it seems that many people want to give her the 'benefit' of being weak rather than accepting that she is to blame.

NY2018

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is there is constant refrain that May is somehow plotting a soft Brexit. Apart from her lukewarm remain bit in the ref. she has shown nothing to indicate that she is minded that way, in fact most of statements have been in regards to a hard brexit.

Couple that with the fact that a large portion of her cabinet are vocal on Brexit, for example Boris speech the other day, which are clearly part of a government policy.

May is driving this, it seems that many people want to give her the 'benefit' of being weak rather than accepting that she is to blame.

I agree and have said about as much myself in a previous post - there is no plot from May.


I think the realisation that a good deal isn't on the table without agreeing to the rules of single market and membership of customs union, and the inevitable consequences that a bad deal would entail have set in with her.

She then takes that position and presents it to her cabinet - 'we need to think about this here'

The hard Brexiteers, the faction that can take her down at any moment, are unequivocal with their red lines - and send her back to Brussels.

She then comes back and relays a similar rhetoric to the cabinet - 'eh, we're kind of in a difficult situation here - these red lines will lead to a deal that could cripple or economy - what should we do?'

The hard Brexiteers, once again are not willing to give an inch and she's left at square one.


Rince and repeat.



In summary, I think she was committed to a hard Brexit but as reality has set in, and with her not being an ideological zealot, she has significantly softened her personal views. And this has left her in no man's land. She's like a ball that's being bounced between the hard Brexiteers and the negotiators in Brussels.

Leroy42

It is a good suggestion, and one I am minded to accept.

However, I see no basis for it. I have yet to see where May has tried to convey this. The only person that has, Hammond (well Rudd has as well I suppose) has been slapped down whenever he tries to speak up.

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

May is driving this, it seems that many people want to give her the 'benefit' of being weak rather than accepting that she is to blame.

Dunno about May driving anything - certainly not any kind of plot! - but it suits all the UK parties to give her the "benefit" of being weak. None of the significant players want an election right now.

Labour's greatest advantage lies in seeing the Tories destroy themselves and leave an almighty mess for Corbyn to clear up - the kind that can't be made any worse.

The DUP are delirious with the illusion of power, especially as Sinn Féin have gifted them the present of direct rule. However, they know that they're not the only unionist party in NI, and there's a very real risk that they'll lose one or more seats to the moderate, pro-EU, not-entirely-anti-united-ish Ireland parties if they force an election while the Brexit house of cards is crumbling.

The Tories have already gambled and lost in the last year. Without a genuinely strong-and-stable leader, there's every chance that they'll see Jeremy Corbyn in No.10 instead of any of them. While it might be strategically useful to hand the poisoned Brexit chalice to Labour, the hard right actually believe in cakeism and will expect to reap the electoral rewards post Brexit, so they need Theresa May to carry the chalice until they're ready to throw her under a suitably big red bus.

And Theresa herself - well, she's a politician: she's in it for herself. In a way, she'd doing exactly the same as Labour - letting the EU and the Tory hard right fight things out on her watch, but not doing anything of any consequence (other than losing the last election :pac: ) to influence the outcome. To a certain extent, she is respecting the will of the people - a half-hearted response to an impossible situation. She'll be hoping to be boxed into a least-worst arrangement, and to lead - or leave - the party as the woman who successfully took the UK out of the EU.

BonnieSituation

CelticRambler wrote: »

Dunno about May driving anything - certainly not any kind of plot! - but it suits all the UK parties to give her the "benefit" of being weak. None of the significant players want an election right now.

Labour's greatest advantage lies in seeing the Tories destroy themselves and leave an almighty mess for Corbyn to clear up - the kind that can't be made any worse.

The DUP are delirious with the illusion of power, especially as Sinn Féin have gifted them the present of direct rule. However, they know that they're not the only unionist party in NI, and there's a very real risk that they'll lose one or more seats to the moderate, pro-EU, not-entirely-anti-united-ish Ireland parties if they force an election while the Brexit house of cards is crumbling.

The Tories have already gambled and lost in the last year. Without a genuinely strong-and-stable leader, there's every chance that they'll see Jeremy Corbyn in No.10 instead of any of them. While it might be strategically useful to hand the poisoned Brexit chalice to Labour, the hard right actually believe in cakeism and will expect to reap the electoral rewards post Brexit, so they need Theresa May to carry the chalice until they're ready to throw her under a suitably big red bus.

And Theresa herself - well, she's a politician: she's in it for herself. In a way, she'd doing exactly the same as Labour - letting the EU and the Tory hard right fight things out on her watch, but not doing anything of any consequence (other than losing the last election :pac: ) to influence the outcome. To a certain extent, she is respecting the will of the people - a half-hearted response to an impossible situation. She'll be hoping to be boxed into a least-worst arrangement, and to lead - or leave - the party as the woman who successfully took the UK out of the EU.

Direct Rule is not a gift to the DUP and far from gifting it to the DUP, SF merely stood their ground with EVERYTHING as they have done since last January. In fact a deal was ready to go last Wednesday and the London -wing of the DUP pulled the rug out from under the whole shebang. Foster isn't strong enough or brave enough or visionary enough to bring the DUP forward, perhaps no one is, but SF wanted direct rule simply to show up how goddam awful Westminster is for moderate unionists. It's been flagged for a while. The only thing was they needed the DUP to take the lead with it so they don't get blamed.

Foster even bit, and said in a press conference that "direct rule was the only option". I mean, it was mind blowing that she couldn't read this from the POV of SF who then gave her a whole day to tighten the noose and give SF all the more power when they responded the next day.

By acting as petulant and childish as they have the last year the DUP have only solidified nationalist and moderate unionist resolve. They are single-handedly chipping away at the union. It's a glorious vista tbh.

SF's approach has been Politics 101. They are tremendous at it.

flutered

Enzokk wrote: »

I think the way to ensure that there isn't undue influence is to have mechanisms in place to ensure that lies are shown to be lies and there to be punitive penalties for wrongdoing. At the moment there is no real consequences for newspapers when they lie. They print a small correction when they have to if they print a misleading headline/story on the front page. What they should do is have a front page story about their mistake and people would not miss it. You cannot expect the press to regulate themselves. It will not work and I don't know of examples where a industry regulating itself has actually been effective. There is no incentive for this.

The hacking scandal has changed nothing because MPs didn't want to change anything. You have the same owners still in charge of their newspapers acting with impunity and having some control over MPs with the threat of scandal stories on their front pages.

as murdoch has said, i can go into no 10 and tell them what to do

CelticRambler

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Direct Rule is not a gift to the DUP and far from gifting it to the DUP, SF merely stood their ground with EVERYTHING as they have done since last January. In fact a deal was ready to go last Wednesday and the London -wing of the DUP pulled the rug out from under the whole shebang.

I can see that my "from the DUP's point of view" comment went over at least one person's head. Yes, SF are the canniest players of the lot. Not only are they standing their ground (and, arguably, a moral high ground, for once) and standing back while the EU and RoI fight their cause for them; but they got the DUP to show their hand back in December and line themselves up for a lose-lose outcome whatever happens.

But that's local NI politics. In the short term, the DUP have their place in Westminster and a hand on the Direct Rule helm. But when the Brexit deal comes up for a vote, either they will incur the wrath of the hardcore Brexiteers for putting Ireland's interest before that of the UK (regulatory alignment across the whole of the UK); or the wrath of the rest by effectively taking Northern Ireland out of the UK (special status or NI) so that a hard Brexit can be allowed wreak havoc on the "mainland".

Infini

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Direct Rule is not a gift to the DUP and far from gifting it to the DUP, SF merely stood their ground with EVERYTHING as they have done since last January. In fact a deal was ready to go last Wednesday and the London -wing of the DUP pulled the rug out from under the whole shebang. Foster isn't strong enough or brave enough or visionary enough to bring the DUP forward, perhaps no one is, but SF wanted direct rule simply to show up how goddam awful Westminster is for moderate unionists. It's been flagged for a while. The only thing was they needed the DUP to take the lead with it so they don't get blamed.

Foster even bit, and said in a press conference that "direct rule was the only option". I mean, it was mind blowing that she couldn't read this from the POV of SF who then gave her a whole day to tighten the noose and give SF all the more power when they responded the next day.

By acting as petulant and childish as they have the last year the DUP have only solidified nationalist and moderate unionist resolve. They are single-handedly chipping away at the union. It's a glorious vista tbh.

SF's approach has been Politics 101. They are tremendous at it.

I would be honest though I wouldnt be suprised if their strategy is to wait it out. They want a UI as their endgame. They know that Brexit is the biggest chance of a UI happening and it was basically handed to them. They also know that they need a significant majority if they're able to make this happen and the best way is not to intimidate moderate unionists but to win them over by basically showing up the extreme elements as utter incompetents and idiots while at the same time showing them that London is more than happy to wreck their region with their incompetent and idiotic carryon.

Reading what I've seen so far despite their own flaw's Sinn Fein is hardly the petulent or unreasonble of the 2 IMO its the DUP who are the problem. Their whole position and reasoning defys all logic and any semblence of competence and they seem stuck in second gear the whole time behind the times constantly.

Brexit is the mother of all gifts for a UI ultimately because all they have to do is let the Torys and DUP wreck the country all the while taking the high ground and chipping away at the utter incompetence of those who created this all the while reminding people that unlike the rest of the UK which is bogged down in a quagmire of idiocy and moronic nationalism that they as a province.... have an out from it all and a way back into the EU via a UI. (Not to mention that if there were a UI they WOULD potentially have more influence so long as they keep their policies sane).

Water John

Politically if you believe some one is doing, a slow car crash, you stand aside and let them at it and let it grab all the attention. That's where parties like LB, SNP and Sinn Fein are.

J Mysterio

The DUP are pushing for direct rule from London to try and cement the union with 'the mainland' in advance of brexit. They are terrified of being seperated by forces out of their control.

They don't trust May. It was remarkable to see the DUP negotiator claim that May was 'interfering' and 'unhelpful' in visiting Northern Ireland to try and find an agreement.

Their collapsing the recent negotiations was totally unilateral and in really bad faith, the way they have conducted themselves for quite some time. Sinn Fein's demands (policies) were perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial. Northern Ireland is quite backward under the DUP. These are not serious politicians, they are scared bigots in a time machine, led by an actual bloody difficult woman.

They will collaps the UK government in a heartbeat if they think there will be a sea border or... anything that could potentially be perceived as making them 'other' in any way from Britain. The DUP had an absolute meltdown when they thought May had made a deal behind their backs for Phase 1. The situation is completely untenable. Its why May should have resigned after the GE. She has consistently failed at leadership and continues to fail. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Junkyard Tom

J Mysterio wrote: »

They will collaps the UK government in a heartbeat if they think there will be a sea border or... anything that could potentially be perceived as making them 'other' in any way from Britain.

Yet they're only too happy to block marriage equality and language acts that are the norm in Britain. One benefit from all this is that people in Britain, and here in the south, have gotten a crash-course in 'no surrender' Unionism and are learning what the Nationalist people have had to put up since the birth of the 'putrid little statelet' as Alex Maskey would put it.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Unless she has an agreement with the EU negotiators to make this happen, surely the time it will take the EU to ratify this deal will be enough for the right wing Tories to vote her out and get a new leader in to reverse this deal?

As I see it:

1. The Tory leader is elected by the party members, and the party members are (a) a fairly small group, and (b) by a majority, hard brexiters. So, if there's a contested election for the Tory leadership, a hard brexiter is likely to win it.

But . . .

2. The leader is removed by the parliamentary party, and the hard brexiters are a minority in the parliamentary party.

Which suggests that . . .

3. The parliamentary party will be slow to shaft May, for fear of being landed with someone worse (i.e. someone more brexity). This, basically, is what has kept her in office for so long, when so much has gone so wrong for her. Under the old Tory rules, under which the parliamentary party could shaft one leader and anoint another, May would be long gone.

4. The only way around this problem is if the principal factions in the Tory party get together and agree on who should be the next leader, and persuade other candidates not to stand, or to withdraw, so that there will be no election. With the current state of division in the party, I don't see this as very likely.

5. This does create an opportunity for May to soften her Brexit stance, which in fact she has been doing to a modest degree, e.g. abandoning the "no deal better than bad deal" line. A softer Brexit will in fact be acceptable to the majority of the Tory parliamentary party, but they will be angry that the party has paid an unnecessarily high political price, by staking out a cakeist position and then having to abandon it, instead of thinking clearly from the outset about what was (a) realistic and (b) in the UK's interests, and targetting that.

6. So, May could cave and take the best deal that the EU offers, which will be a far cry from cake. And she could say to the party, in effect, it's not great but it's the best we're going to get, and better than crashing out. And the party will, by a majority, back her, but with a bad grace.

7. The party will then lose the next election, May will go, the rank and file will elect a hard Brexiter who will rant and rave against the EU for refusing to grant the UK the cakeist deal that, as British subjects and special precious snowflakes, they were divinely entitled to. Every ill that flows from Brexit will be blamed on the EU.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

"Sacrificial lamb" in terms of abandoning the border question. If the EU were to turn around and decide that the border question is not that important - that the UK could put in a hard border and still get a deal - then that's illustrating that it's willing to ignore the red lines issues of member states in order to accomodate unreasonable trade partners.

And this signals to all EU nations that they cannot rely on the union to treat them as equals when the union faces difficult situations.

No, no, no. I think this has things the wrong way around.

Imagine the hard brexiters got their dream cakeist deal; no tariffs, no restrictions of any kind on goods and coming from the UK, no need for those goods to comply with EU standards or be subject to EU regulations. This would involve an open border.

The EU would be fine with the open border bit; we currently have an open border, and that's just hunky-dory. What the EU are not fine with is the free entry of goods and services with compliance, regulation, etc.

If the EU did cave to UK cakeist demands, the result would still be an open border.

The EU's position is, no, if you won't be subject to standards, regulation, etc, then your goods have to be restricted, inspected, etc, and that requires a hard border. But that's not the result of the EU "caving" to keep the UK in or close to the single market; it's the result of the EU refusing to cave.

I can't see any scenario in which the EU caves to UK demands and the result is a closed border. I can see a scenario in which the UK decides that not being subject to EU regulation, standards, etc is so important that they will accept a hard border as the price they have to pay for that. I don't think there's any way the EU can prevent the UK making this decision, though, if that's the decision the UK is minded to make.

Nody

From May at the security conference in Munich was quoted stating:

Theresa May will risk a fresh clash with EU leaders over Brexit when she warns them not to let “doctrine and ideology” stand in the way of preserving cross-border security.

On Friday, a former Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, warned the UK had no choice but to agree to abide by ECJ rules if it wanted to preserve security cooperation. And he said it was vital to start negotiations on a new agreement immediately, adding: “I am concerned that, as far as we can see, security is not on the radar screen right now.”

However, in her speech, Ms May will again insist that ECJ oversight will end, while arguing that should not be a barrier to a new security treaty.

Doctrine and ideology should not stand in the way but I refuse to be under ECJ jurisdiction due to doctrine and ideology; what is it with British politicians insisting on always eating cake and keeping it? Is this cakeism something taught at Harvard or something?

Leroy42

Is there actually a need for the ECJ with regard to security, does the EU not share info with countries outside of the ECJ umbrella?

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is there actually a need for the ECJ with regard to security, does the EU not share info with countries outside of the ECJ umbrella?

EU shares limited data and do look ups in the EU DB on behalf of other countries; UK want (as always) same access as they had as member while being a third party country and ECJ is required for EU citizen arrest orders, direct access to DBs etc.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

From May at the security conference in Munich was quoted stating:
Doctrine and ideology should not stand in the way but I refuse to be under ECJ jurisdiction due to doctrine and ideology; what is it with British politicians insisting on always eating cake and keeping it? Is this cakeism something taught at Harvard or something?

My views are not "doctrine and ideology", Nody. My views are just common sense. It's only your views that are doctrine and ideology.

Infini

Peregrinus wrote: »

My views are not "doctrine and ideology", Nody. My views are just common sense. It's only your views that are doctrine and ideology.

Look the whole idea of Brexit is utterly driven by iddology and nothing but that. Every sound argument against it is ignored because the whole lot pushing it cant admit that theyre wrong and cant deal with the complexity that leaving the EU entails.

Brexit is Bolloxed IMO.

Vronsky

Nody wrote: »

From May at the security conference in Munich was quoted stating:
Doctrine and ideology should not stand in the way but I refuse to be under ECJ jurisdiction due to doctrine and ideology; what is it with British politicians insisting on always eating cake and keeping it? Is this cakeism something taught at Harvard or something?

It's not cakeism, it's exceptionalism. And it's a common trait among imperial powers past and present.

Capt'n Midnight

Infini wrote: »

Look the whole idea of Brexit is utterly driven by iddology and nothing but that. Every sound argument against it is ignored because the whole lot pushing it cant admit that theyre wrong and cant deal with the complexity that leaving the EU entails.

Brexit is Bolloxed IMO.

Not just ideology , a minority of vested interests stand to make a killing on it.

It's like libertarianism in the sense that people with loads of money should be allowed do what they want regardless of the consequences for the nobodies who don't have enough money because, obviously it's their own fault for being too foolish or lazy.

The gap between rich and poor has now increased to 8.4 years of live expectancy, ie. 8.4 years more state subsidies if you apply libertarian logic principles.


I hope Brexit is sabre rattling and they back down. But the drip-drip of bad news is like the myth of the frog being boiled. The problem is that most of the consequences haven't been explained.

*For instant recession just add Brexit*

If there is a global economic slowdown when Brexit kicks then you can imagine all the countries the UK needs deals with pulling in their horns. They are gambling on a continued run of good luck.

On the domestic front the news is depressing, UK interest rates going up, council tax going up, inflation higher than wage growth, mortgage problems especially in the buy to let areas, NHS funding, personal debt levels going up. There doesn't seem to be any good news for someone who is just breaking even.

Like here to a lesser extent there's a whole generation that previously would have been asset holding homeowners with pensions, now being converted to income streams through renting and paying back interest on loans.

Capt'n Midnight

BBC Headline. Sounds like we are getting somewhere ?
May: New security deal should be effective by next year

Nope. It it's just another wish list item.

Theresa May has called for a new "deep and special partnership" to ensure the UK and EU can continue to work together on security after Brexit.

File under "stuff that should have been sorted out before triggering Article 50"

The UK isn't asking for Status Quo.

There's the whole not wanting the ECJ thing and stuff like the "snoopers charter" and other Data Protection and Citizens rights issues being rolled out on the UK side. The UK is asking to continued access on the same terms, whilst at the same time undermining the relationship.

Enzokk

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

BBC Headline. Sounds like we are getting somewhere ?
May: New security deal should be effective by next year

Nope. It it's just another wish list item.

File under "stuff that should have been sorted out before triggering Article 50"

The UK isn't asking for Status Quo.

There's the whole not wanting the ECJ thing and stuff like the "snoopers charter" and other Data Protection and Citizens rights issues being rolled out on the UK side. The UK is asking to continued access on the same terms, whilst at the same time undermining the relationship.

Always with the deep and special relationship, but the UK will not accept the EU institutions that will allow their relationship to be deep and special. I guess if they say it long enough they think the EU will oblige and give it to them.

Another term that the UK seems intent on using is the EU needs to be "creative and flexible" with regards to a deal with the UK. But the more the EU says it cannot be more flexible as they have been with other third countries, the more the UK think they are special.

'A' deep and special relationship, but not 'THE' deep and special relationship

CelticRambler

The one phrase that stood out for me in Theresa May's speech was her encouragement to be "ambitious about this ... security treaty for the future". That's not the first time she's spoken about being "ambitious" in respect of the negotiations, while being apparently oblivious to the need to match action to ambition. It reminds me of her repeated assertions that Britain "has been clear on this point" even though the only thing that was clear about whatever point was being discussed was that Britain hadn't the faintest idea of what to do.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

Always with the deep and special relationship, but the UK will not accept the EU institutions that will allow their relationship to be deep and special. I guess if they say it long enough they think the EU will oblige and give it to them.

Another term that the UK seems intent on using is the EU needs to be "creative and flexible" with regards to a deal with the UK. But the more the EU says it cannot be more flexible as they have been with other third countries, the more the UK think they are special.

It's complete nonsense from May as usual. Talking about opting in to some bits of the Single Market that she likes, opting out of other stuff she strongly dislikes. Not being under the jurisdiction of the ECJ but being 'in alignment' with them on certain issues. Absolute twaddle from a bunch of delusional ideologues.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

It's complete nonsense from May as usual. Talking about opting in to some bits of the Single Market that she likes, opting out of other stuff she strongly dislikes. Not being under the jurisdiction of the ECJ but being 'in alignment' with them on certain issues. Absolute twaddle from a bunch of delusional ideologues.

Mogg and Fox definitely, but I wouldn't see Johnson, Davies or May as ideologues. May is a hypocrite who ditched her principles and beliefs to become PM. Davies doesn't have the intellect to develop any principles. Johnson is trying to become PM and will say anything to achieve that aim. In fact, he was quite pro EU until a few years when the opportunity to take the Leave limelight presented itself. Of course Leave won which was not part of his plan.