Brexit discussion thread III

trellheim

Then the're having a higher degree of fantasy than we ever feared.

I think you underestimate the echo chamber and madness that is the Tory party at the moment

HugoRune

First Up wrote: »

HugoRune wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

No, May never. No May never no more.

But there is another way. Implement a one way border. A semi-hard, if you will, and let the Brexiters have their phyrric victory. All goods/people into ROI subject to tariffs and control checks. Anything going the other way is waved on though with the blessings and goodwill of the nation.

Goodwill of which nation?

ROI. I was going to add 'of course' but there might be something I'm missing.

So to clarify, really I was getting at the fact that Brexit happened largely because of the foreigners. The British view themselves as honourable, and to backtrack on something as obvious as the GFA would expose dishonesty. Therefore, no border controls. But now you have a clear, uncontrolled, route into the UK for all the dirty foreigners. This will terrify the Brexiters who are likely hoping that EU requirements for control on goods into the EU will create problems at the ROI/NI border and force a special arrangement. A one way border messes with that hope.

Anyway, without that ROI leverage, rEU would have moved on already.

First Up

HugoRune wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

HugoRune wrote: »

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

No, May never. No May never no more.

But there is another way. Implement a one way border. A semi-hard, if you will, and let the Brexiters have their phyrric victory. All goods/people into ROI subject to tariffs and control checks. Anything going the other way is waved on though with the blessings and goodwill of the nation.

Goodwill of which nation?

ROI. I was going to add 'of course' but there might be something I'm missing.

Well, I'm not getting your point. Import controls are the responsibility of the importing country. If the UK waves things through its border with the EU, its their business. Our blessings have nothing to do with it.

But if the UK waves things though an international customs border, they open a pretty spectacular can of worms as under WTO rules, they are obliged to wave through everything from everywhere.

Capt'n Midnight

trellheim wrote: »

I have a thought that there are some in the UK who consider that this is one of the options - that Ireland also leaves, and are gambling somewhat on it.

The survey on that one was pretty one-sided. Even if it cost us money we'd stay in the EU. The "No" voters were less than SF get,

SF are the party most against the EU since before we joined ,and they unlikely to be even a junior partner in any government for at least another generation - at the worst half of their voters want us to stay in.

Amongst full time students - the cohort where the next generation of politicians will come from - the support is 99% for staying in the EU even if it costs us economically.


It's a complete non-isssue.


No EU politician outside the UK , not even here, is going to loose sleep about loosing an election by playing hardball with the UK.

In the UK both Labour and the Conservatives could destroy their parties if they get Brexit wrong.

Cookie_Monster

trellheim wrote: »

Assume a hard border goes up in ROI/NI in March 2019 ( never mind the "will it won't it" for a moment)
Hypothesize that it will.
If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?
( Don't focus on "never happen" , just assume the hard border for a moment )

In the wake of the economic reality I think 99% of the desire for a united Ireland would just evaporate. Not many in this country would have much issue throwing NI under the Brexit bus to avoid the same disaster happening. Let the Uk deal with the mess than NI will become rather than saddling us with it.

Peregrinus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In the wake of the economic reality I think 99% of the desire for a united Ireland would just evaporate. Not many in this country would have much issue throwing NI under the Brexit bus to avoid the same disaster happening. Let the Uk deal with the mess than NI will become rather than saddling us with it.

Trollheim isn't suggesting a united Ireland - just that Ireland would leave the EU at the same time as the UK, in order to avoid a hard border.

Trollheim, simply leaving the EU wouldn't in itself guarantee no hard border between RoI and UK. Remember that prior to 1973 there was a hard border between RoI and UK. To avoid a hard border, RoI and the UK would have to enter into a customs union with one another, and also to align their regulatory regimes in much the way that they are currently aligned through single market membership.

There is zero chance of the RoI leaving the EU because the UK does, and zero to the power of zero times chance of Ireland entering into a customs union with the UK, and aligning its regulatory regime with the UK's.

trellheim wrote: »

I have a thought that there are some in the UK who consider that this is one of the options - that Ireland also leaves, and are gambling somewhat on it.

There may be some in the UK who think this but, then, the Brexit campaign has been characterised by the most unbounded ignorance and the most extravagant wishful thinking pretty much from the get-go. No sane person thinks this.

Peregrinus

HugoRune wrote: »

ROI. I was going to add 'of course' but there might be something I'm missing.

So to clarify, really I was getting at the fact that Brexit happened largely because of the foreigners. The British view themselves as honourable, and to backtrack on something as obvious as the GFA would expose dishonesty. Therefore, no border controls. But now you have a clear, uncontrolled, route into the UK for all the dirty foreigners. This will terrify the Brexiters who are likely hoping that EU requirements for control on goods into the EU will create problems at the ROI/NI border and force a special arrangement. A one way border messes with that hope.

As others have pointed out, it will be the UK who decide whether there are to be restrictions on goods or persons entering the UK across the Irish border, not the EU. And, if they do decide unilterally to allow goods enter the UK across the Irish border with no tariffs and no restrictions then, under WTO most favoured nation rules they must allow all goods from all countries to enter without tariffs or restrictions across all their borders. Which, other objections aside, would pretty much put the kibosh on their fantasy of negotiating a network of really brilliant super-duper trade deals.

As regards migration, the UK does not intend to rely primarily on its borders to repel the hordes of foreigners. They propose to do this internally, with people being required to establish their citizenship/immigration status in order to buy or rent a house, take a job, enrol with a GP practice, put their kids in school, etc, etc. Thus they reckon that, as far as migration is concerned, they don't need a hard border either in Ireland or at British ports/airports.

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

A re-run of the referendum won't solve anything. As has been discussed before, the margin of victory, even if in favour of Remain, would still be small, so we'd have the same Them vs Us bickering for years to come.

The only option would be to have a court declare the whole process invalid on account of outside interference, failure to respect the code of conduct (e.g. the DUP campaigning in London) and a blatant misrepresentation of what was being asked/offered ... but that's no more likely to happen now than it is in respect of Trump's election.

I'd be inclined to agree. If there was another referendum and Remain was to win narrowly, the hard Brexiteers would create a "stab in the back" myth of how they had been cheated out of Brexit by undemocratic scoundrels.

My own feeling is that it might take the UK going over the edge of a cliff and crashing onto the rocks below to either discredit British Euroscepticism or deal it a serious blow. People are so entrenched in their opinions and hostility to the EU that it may take complete economic carnage to make them start questioning things.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree. If there was another referendum and Remain was to win narrowly, the hard Brexiteers would create a "stab in the back" myth of how they had been cheated out of Brexit by undemocratic scoundrels.

This. As it is, they're pre-emptively creating a myth to explain why Brexit works out badly for the UK; it's because the nasty bullying EU refused to magic up the have-cake-and-eat-it Brexit that the UK, as the Land of Hope and Glory and Mother of the Free, is entitled to by nature and destiny.

Strazdas wrote: »

My own feeling is that it might take the UK going over the edge of a cliff and crashing onto the rocks below to either discredit British Euroscepticism or deal it a serious blow. People are so entrenched in their opinions and hostility to the EU that it may take complete economic carnage to make them start questioning things.

I don't think there's an easy route back into the EU for the UK, to be honest. Once you have burned down your house For The Cause, there's a powerful psychological need to believe that The Cause is good and burning down your house was right and necessary, the suffering of your family a sacrifice ina good cause, etc. So there's an intense aversion to admitting that you have made a disastrous mistake, burned down your own house and brought suffering on others out of sheer stupidity.

So, the worse Brexit proves, the stronger will be the Brexiters' conviction that Brexit was right, good and necessary, and the more they will insist that the resulting damage is entirely the responsibility of the EU. They adopt this position not so much as a calculated strategy but a psychological necessity, to preserve what remains of their own self-esteem. And while this may be a minority view in the UK, it will be strongly-held view in a significant section of the people. And it will prevent the development of any kind of broad consensus about the desirability of rejoining the EU; this will continue to be a bitterly divisive issue.

Which means, even if there's a majority in the UK in favour of rejoining, the EU will be fairly leery. We don't want to go through all that grief again.

Enzokk

Water John wrote: »

The right wing think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic have been colluding. They intend feeding the Brits with, the chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and GMO cereals.
Leaked

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/revealed-us-uk-rightwing-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks

The foundations are being laid by the IFT (Initiative for Free Trade) for the UK to accept products from the US that will have lower standards than the EU. These products will be cheaper as there will be no tariffs, or very little, but the same products from the EU will cost more as tariffs will be introduced on them. Then the excuse is rolled out, the UK consumer doesn't have to buy the hormone fueled product because they can pay more for the EU version. It's their choice you see. We want people to be poorer and then still claim they will have a choice in buying cheap food to eat to survive.

From your link

A spokesperson for the IFT said the plan was an internal document not meant for public consumption.She said it was not a solely “libertarian” campaign, as some of the thinktanks involved were conservative.

“We don’t hope to pressure the government to do anything,” she said. “We hope to provide government with as much information as possible on the potential gains of such a UK-US trade deal.

“Mutual recognition of standards, which we do mention quite a bit, would not require the UK to move away from the precautionary principle at all, or to change its standards, regulations or laws in any way.

“If consumers don’t want to buy products made to different standards to our own, they will see the US flag on the packet and not buy it,” she said.

Such a silly argument to state that its for consumers to decide as they have a choice, but ignoring the implications that this will have around that principle. If the US is allowed to sell goods with lower standards in the UK then it means a lot of bad things for everyone involved, except a small minority who happen to support these think tanks.

Skedaddle

Don't worry, it will only take a few years before the Brexiteers are demanding freedom from Washington DC's awful red tape. If you think you can enter a free trade agreement with the USA without submitting to all sorts of US regulatory agencies (without any input into how they work) you're utterly deluded.

The USA is currently ripping up NAFTA and undermining its closest and most interconnected neighbour, Canada. Trump HATES the concept of fair trade and thinks that the whole thing is about taking advantage, fair or not.

The UK hopes to get what exactly? It'll be a relationship like Sideshow Bob to Crusty the Clown or Madge Alsop to Dame Edna. They'll be the bitter little put upon most unequal partner that has to follow the big diva around like a bitter, abused puppy.

In a US trade deal the UK has basically no leverage whatsoever. It’s going to be one hell of an adjustment from equal partner in the world’s largest trade bloc to bouncing around on bilateral trade deals with random countries.

Nody

Skedaddle wrote: »

Don't worry, it will only take a few years before the Brexiteers are demanding freedom from Washington DC's awful red tape. If you think you can enter a free trade agreement with the USA without submitting to all sorts of US regulatory agencies (without any input into how they work) you're utterly deluded.

The USA is currently ripping up NAFTA and undermining its closest and most interconnected neighbour, Canada. Trump HATES the concept of fair trade and thinks that the whole thing is about taking advantage, fair or not.

The UK hopes to get what exactly? It'll be a relationship like Sideshow Bob to Crusty the Clown or Madge Alsop to Dame Edna. They'll be the bitter little put upon most unequal partner that has to follow the big diva around like a bitter, abused puppy.

While I agree with the relationship description I disagree on the outcome you predict. The reason being UK has (in their mind) had a "special relationship" with the USA for decades. The reality is nothing like that and USA could not really give a damn what the UK wanted for decades but UK still thinks it's WW2 and the special relationship is there and somehow matters. They will follow Trump and US around while bleating about the "special relationship" they have and how the TD is really fair for the UK because <insert excuses> when in reality it's a one sided deal in US favour only. It will be lauded as a great success and used as "proof" how desirable the UK products are etc. when in reality all they done is railroad their own producers and run them into bankruptcy.

Leroy42

It would be akin to Ireland leaving the EU to go into a 'partnership' with the UK.

We all know who has the power in that relationship, regardless of what agreements are made.

Enzokk

Nody wrote: »

While I agree with the relationship description I disagree on the outcome you predict. The reason being UK has (in their mind) had a "special relationship" with the USA for decades. The reality is nothing like that and USA could not really give a damn what the UK wanted for decades but UK still thinks it's WW2 and the special relationship is there and somehow matters. They will follow Trump and US around while bleating about the "special relationship" they have and how the TD is really fair for the UK because <insert excuses> when in reality it's a one sided deal in US favour only. It will be lauded as a great success and used as "proof" how desirable the UK products are etc. when in reality all they done is railroad their own producers and run them into bankruptcy.

It will come down to the message that is sent from the newspapers. If they deem the deal to be worthy they will not report the downsides of it to the public. It will be up to others to point out the problems of the deal for the public.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

This would hurt NI a lot. Really, an enormous amount.

But I'd rather see a Dundalk to Derry canal full of jumping robot laser sharks than the Republic leaving the EU.

And while this might sound harsh on nationalists in NI, as if we are abandoning them, it is possible that the absolute devastation which would follow in the North might push the middle ground (such as it is up there) towards rejoining the EU via a United Ireland.

First Up

Enzokk wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

The right wing think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic have been colluding. They intend feeding the Brits with, the chlorinated chicken, hormone treated beef and GMO cereals.
Leaked

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/17/revealed-us-uk-rightwing-thinktanks-talks-to-ditch-eu-safety-checks

The foundations are being laid by the IFT (Initiative for Free Trade) for the UK to accept products from the US that will have lower standards than the EU. These products will be cheaper as there will be no tariffs, or very little, but the same products from the EU will cost more as tariffs will be introduced on them. Then the excuse is rolled out, the UK consumer doesn't have to buy the hormone fueled product because they can pay more for the EU version. It's their choice you see. We want people to be poorer and then still claim they will have a choice in buying cheap food to eat to survive.

From your link

A spokesperson for the IFT said the plan was an internal document not meant for public consumption.She said it was not a solely “libertarian” campaign, as some of the thinktanks involved were conservative.

“We don’t hope to pressure the government to do anything,” she said. “We hope to provide government with as much information as possible on the potential gains of such a UK-US trade deal.

“Mutual recognition of standards, which we do mention quite a bit, would not require the UK to move away from the precautionary principle at all, or to change its standards, regulations or laws in any way.

“If consumers don’t want to buy products made to different standards to our own, they will see the US flag on the packet and not buy it,” she said.

Such a silly argument to state that its for consumers to decide as they have a choice, but ignoring the implications that this will have around that principle. If the US is allowed to sell goods with lower standards in the UK then it means a lot of bad things for everyone involved, except a small minority who happen to support these think tanks.

There is no "packet" for consumers to see on the ingredients used in restaurants, canteens, school meals etc.

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree. If there was another referendum and Remain was to win narrowly, the hard Brexiteers would create a "stab in the back" myth of how they had been cheated out of Brexit by undemocratic scoundrels.

And if the UK does not reverse course, it'll cost them £400 billion pounds.

Obviously keeping the Brexiteers happy is more important though.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

There is no "packet" for consumers to see on the ingredients used in restaurants, canteens, school meals etc.

The other effect is that UK producers, faced with losing business to cheaper imports from the states, will look at reducing costs. A major way is to reduce standards, particularly if they are no longer regulated.

So whilst you will still have hand-feed, organic free range chickens for sale, the vast majority of the produce will be based on price and as such go with the cheapest available.

Sam Russell

If Brexit goes ahead, which appears likely, and it is a disaster, which appears likely, I would see a Scottish referendum succeeding and Scotland rejoining the EU. Depending on the economic status of NI, there could well be a border poll at the same time and NI rejoin the EU as part of a united Ireland.

That would leave just England and Wales outside the EU. In those circumstances, they might look to rejoin at some time, but much later.

seamus

trellheim wrote: »

If a poll was taken in the knowledge that a hard border would go up, would Ireland also vote to leave under Article 50 as the only way to avoid it ?

I always wonder why Ireland leaving the EU is continually posited as the best way to avoid conflict in the North rather than the more obvious solution of NI leaving the UK.

There would be no waiting period for EU membership, once unified with the Republic, everyone in the North would return to the EU overnight.

The economic cost to Ireland leaving the EU would be enormous and we'd have nobody to dig us out but ourselves.

The economic cost of unification would also be enormous, but the EU would gladly rain down pots of gold to assist with the transition.

Skedaddle

Nody wrote: »

While I agree with the relationship description I disagree on the outcome you predict. The reason being UK has (in their mind) had a "special relationship" with the USA for decades. The reality is nothing like that and USA could not really give a damn what the UK wanted for decades but UK still thinks it's WW2 and the special relationship is there and somehow matters. They will follow Trump and US around while bleating about the "special relationship" they have and how the TD is really fair for the UK because <insert excuses> when in reality it's a one sided deal in US favour only. It will be lauded as a great success and used as "proof" how desirable the UK products are etc. when in reality all they done is railroad their own producers and run them into bankruptcy.

There’s also no political or general public awareness of this ‘special relationship’ in the US. It’s largely something that is only ever spoken of in the UK.

In some ways, in terms of real political soft power, Ireland probally holds more clout than the UK does. The US military is quite happy to play the UK along when it needs a bit of a hand or legitimisation of some campaign somewhere. However, on day to day politics I don’t really see them as having any influence at all really.

I’m not saying there’s an “Irish-American” political lobby you can ring up, but because of the number of Americans who are quite nostalgic about their Irish roots, Irish interests do get a hearing in both parties in a way that’s quite unusual, but not in any kind of really formalised context. The same most definitely does not apply to England / UK interests and I say that with experience of US politics on the ground in the states.

Trump in particular also seems to describe everyone he meets as ‘his new friend’ or ‘my friend’ and go on about close and special relationships. However, I would be vary wary of taking that kind of rhetoric at face value. It’s just diplomatic plamasing

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

I always wonder why Ireland leaving the EU is continually posited as the best way to avoid conflict in the North rather than the more obvious solution of NI leaving the UK.

Simply because the Unionist side would never, never, never agree with this.

Look at the recent spat over Phase 1. DUP pretty much were given the best of both worlds, stay in the EU and the UK, but choose to go with the UK only option. There position is that they are part of the UK, ruled by the Queen, members of the commonwealth. Everything else is secondary to what position.

Skedaddle

Leroy42 wrote: »

Simply because the Unionist side would never, never, never agree with this.

Look at the recent spat over Phase 1. DUP pretty much were given the best of both worlds, stay in the EU and the UK, but choose to go with the UK only option. There position is that they are part of the UK, ruled by the Queen, members of the commonwealth. Everything else is secondary to what position.

The EU was the ideal compromise as it was neutral on national identity and created a perfect status quo scenario where being Irish or British in NI didn’t matter a damn and the border was reduced to an imaginary line on a map.

Without the EU, you’re back to having to pick sides.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Brexit goes ahead, which appears likely, and it is a disaster, which appears likely, I would see a Scottish referendum succeeding and Scotland rejoining the EU. Depending on the economic status of NI, there could well be a border poll at the same time and NI rejoin the EU as part of a united Ireland.

That would leave just England and Wales outside the EU. In those circumstances, they might look to rejoin at some time, but much later.

Over the DUP's dead body, figuratively and literally.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Over the DUP's dead body, figuratively and literally.

The the DUP won't have a veto all you need is 50% plus one .

Harika

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Brexit goes ahead, which appears likely, and it is a disaster, which appears likely, I would see a Scottish referendum succeeding and Scotland rejoining the EU. Depending on the economic status of NI, there could well be a border poll at the same time and NI rejoin the EU as part of a united Ireland.

That would leave just England and Wales outside the EU. In those circumstances, they might look to rejoin at some time, but much later.

Nah Scotland blew it with the referendum far too early, Sturgeon was punished in the recent election for her stance on a repeat. That was a big tactical blunder to not wait for the Brexit referendum in hindsight.

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The the DUP won't have a veto all you need is 50% plus one .

Do you think that the DUP will recognise or accept such a result?

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you think that the DUP will recognise or accept such a result?

Seeing as they are adamantly insisting on Brexit (because the people has spoken) you just know they will not recognise it if is a vote for unification.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Seeing as they are adamantly insisting on Brexit (because the people has spoken) you just know they will not recognise it if is a vote for unification.

Absolutely not. Having had an active interest in NI politics for decades, IMO everything that the DUP stands for points away from a UI. If Scotland were to break away and push to join the EU (they can't join again) and if England were to cast NI adrift after Brexit, the DUP would push for an independent state in NI with strong ties to England. At the very best, perhaps 10 years down the road and after probable conflict in NI and possibly down South, you might get a loose federation of ROI and an independent NI within the EU.

trellheim

I always wonder why Ireland leaving the EU is continually posited as the best way to avoid conflict in the North rather than the more obvious solution of NI leaving the UK.

There would be no waiting period for EU membership, once unified with the Republic, everyone in the North would return to the EU overnight.

The economic cost to Ireland leaving the EU would be enormous and we'd have nobody to dig us out but ourselves.

The economic cost of unification would also be enormous, but the EU would gladly rain down pots of gold to assist with the transition.

No, I get that. My point was to work from the assumption of a hard border in the NI.

People are assuming rational actors in the UK. they are not, from our point of view

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you think that the DUP will recognise or accept such a result?

It doesn't come down to the DUP thankfully. It's a will of the majority of the people backed by the British government as co-guarantors of the GFA with the Irish govt. The DUP can kick and scream all they like.But it will be a case of tough titty.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Do you think that the DUP will recognise or accept such a result?

I'm sure the DUP can refuse to govern in a UI too. More of the same so.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Over the DUP's dead body, figuratively and literally.

I would imagine that if Brexit is a disaster and NI suffers disproportionately, then it would be over DUP's dead body - they would be replaced by a more rational Unionist party, if one exists.

J Mysterio

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm sure the DUP can refuse to govern in a UI too. More of the same so.

I doubt they would be elected to govern in a UI

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Absolutely not. Having had an active interest in NI politics for decades, IMO everything that the DUP stands for points away from a UI. If Scotland were to break away and push to join the EU (they can't join again) and if England were to cast NI adrift after Brexit, the DUP would push for an independent state in NI with strong ties to England. At the very best, perhaps 10 years down the road and after probable conflict in NI and possibly down South, you might get a loose federation of ROI and an independent NI within the EU.

The whole independent state thing is a complete non-starter to be brutally honest. For starters the insecurity inherent in political unionism would never allow them to wilfully go into part of an independent state where 'Protestants' were in the minority.

It also doesn't make a lot of sense to political nationalism. They have been handed a huge opportunity with Brexit and the real chance of uniting the country.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would imagine that if Brexit is a disaster and NI suffers disproportionately, then it would be over DUP's dead body - they would be replaced by a more rational Unionist party, if one exists.

That would be the hope - a resurgent UUP. There are no straws in the wind indicating that is imminent at the moment though. Even if that were to happen, and it is very unlikely that the UUP would completely replace the DUP, it would still be over the DUP's dead body. Besides which, if Brexit goes through and it eventually turns out to be a disaster, we are looking at a minimum of five years down the road.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

The whole independent state thing is a complete non-starter to be brutally honest. For starters the insecurity inherent in political unionism would never allow them to wilfully go into part of an independent state where 'Protestants' were in the minority.

It also doesn't make a lot of sense to political nationalism. They have been handed a huge opportunity with Brexit and the real chance of uniting the country.

In the very possible scenario where a post-Brexit England cuts NI loose and if a UI is mooted, Unionism would look to Scotland first, then and an independent state with (perhaps) loose ties to the ROI. It would be to ignore a very long history to assume that Loyalism will ever countenance being governed by Dublin.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That would be the hope - a resurgent UUP. There are no straws in the wind indicating that is imminent at the moment though. Even if that were to happen, and it is very unlikely that the UUP would completely replace the DUP, it would still be over the DUP's dead body. Besides which, if Brexit goes through and it eventually turns out to be a disaster, we are looking at a minimum of five years down the road.

I think it's more likely we will see a complete fracturing of political unionism in the near future.

I look around at the figures in unionism and who is there? The only one that I can think of with any little bit of political nous is Simon Hamilton. Can Foster hang on much longer? A few of the old guard will be gone soon, Dodds, Campbell etc. And there is really no one to replace them. Unionism is in a bad way when the best the DUP can do is the likes of Dale Pankhurst, their most recent recruit.

The UUP is in worse shape. Even Doug Beattie got swept away in the anti-ILA hysteria, which was really disappointing for one of their more liberal leaders.

joeysoap

The pro newspapers use a sledge a sledgehammer to drive home their message usually accompanied by senapsational headlines.

Sunday Times much more subtle yesterday. A feature called ‘Brains For Brexit’ names nearly 40 eminent ‘great minds thinking alike’ who are in favour of Brexit.
Economists, philosophers,lawyers,diplomatic service,social policy,phychology, business, historians, natural sciences and political sciences,

In the last paragraph the author ( who voted remain) stated that in a new referendum he would vote leave, stating that’s it’s the smart option.

No mention of course of SM or CU

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the very possible scenario where a post-Brexit England cuts NI loose and if a UI is mooted, Unionism would look to Scotland first . . .

Scotland would look fixedly in another direction.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the very possible scenario where a post-Brexit England cuts NI loose and if a UI is mooted, Unionism would look to Scotland first, then and an independent state with (perhaps) loose ties to the ROI. It would be to ignore a very long history to assume that Loyalism will ever countenance being governed by Dublin.

It should be the kick up the hole Unionism needs to provide some long overdue leadership, and lead for a change.

As for the scenario you posit, I think it could either just happen very fast (re unification) or Scotland and unification would happen in parallel. You know, I used to laugh at all those who seriously argued for the 'Celtic' union, but by hell I can't believe it's actually a future possibility now.

Interesting times indeed.

Havockk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Scotland would look fixedly in another direction.

Yes, Unionism of the NI variety is definitely not the most popular thing in Scotland, outside of small pockets.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

I think it's more likely we will see a complete fracturing of political unionism in the near future.

I look around at the figures in unionism and who is there? The only one that I can think of with any little bit of political nous is Simon Hamilton. Can Foster hang on much longer? A few of the old guard will be gone soon, Dodds, Campbell etc. And there is really no one to replace them. Unionism is in a bad way when the best the DUP can do is the likes of Dale Pankhurst, their most recent recruit.

The UUP is in worse shape. Even Doug Beattie got swept away in the anti-ILA hysteria, which was really disappointing for one of their more liberal leaders.

It's possible. One of two things will happen. (a) Unionism sees the reality train coming down the tracks and adjusts its thinking accordingly. Or (b) it circles the wagons even further and a new Never, Never, Never leader emerges.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In the very possible scenario where a post-Brexit England cuts NI loose and if a UI is mooted, Unionism would look to Scotland first, then and an independent state with (perhaps) loose ties to the ROI. It would be to ignore a very long history to assume that Loyalism will ever countenance being governed by Dublin.

Scotland would be wise to look the other way unless they fancied us vetoing their EU membership forever and a day.

Professor Moriarty

Havockk wrote: »

It should be the kick up the hole Unionism needs to provide some long overdue leadership, and lead for a change.

As for the scenario you posit, I think it could either just happen very fast (re unification) or Scotland and unification would happen in parallel. You know, I used to laugh at all those who seriously argued for the 'Celtic' union, but by hell I can't believe it's actually a future possibility now.

Interesting times indeed.

I think a Celtic Union between the island of Ireland and Scotland is very possible and, in many ways, desirable. Not least because Scotland shares many societal values with the ROI. That old Chinese curse.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Scotland would look fixedly in another direction.

Absolutely. The OO ties apart, NI would be seen as toxic.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's possible. One of two things will happen. (a) Unionism sees the reality train coming down the tracks and adjusts its thinking accordingly. Or (b) it circles the wagons even further and a new Never, Never, Never leader emerges.

Or a third. The UK as a whole is forced to pony up any losses that NI suffer as a result of Brexit. That would leave NI is roughly the same state as now and so no need to move anywhere

Professor Moriarty

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Scotland would be wise to look the other way unless they fancied us vetoing their EU membership forever and a day.

I think we'd be very foolish to veto Scotland's application under almost any circumstance.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Or a third. The UK as a whole is forced to pony up any losses that NI suffer as a result of Brexit. That would leave NI is roughly the same state as now and so no need to move anywhere

Well, the discussion was predicated on the break up of the UK i.e. an independent Scotland applying to join the EU. If the UK doesn't break up after Brexit then NI will be much more secure from a Unionist perspective.

Havockk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's possible. One of two things will happen. (a) Unionism sees the reality train coming down the tracks and adjusts its thinking accordingly. Or (b) it circles the wagons even further and a new Never, Never, Never leader emerges.

They will of course elect for the circling of the wagons. Except now of course they have marched to the wrong battlefield on the wrong day. The new battle now is for the middle classes and the centre ground, the people who's pockets rather than identity dictate their vote.