Brexit discussion thread III

J Mysterio

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.

ended up here through his Twitter: http://viewsofaunionist2.blogspot.ie/2017/07/why-muscular-irish-language-act-must-be.html

'The Irish language must be opposed in NI because Sinn Fein have weaponized it to stretch the link between NI and Britain.' Eh... Ok.

Water John

The idea of a Celtic Federation might be one way. Scotland, NI and ROI.
Unionists have little to fear as, Scots + NI would always dominate. Scotland is, after all, the ancestral home of most NI protestants.
Scotland and NI would not have the leave the EU at all or have to reapply for membership.
In terms of power, almost all would remain with each of the three countries.


Don't think East Germany ever applied for membership, in the way being envisaged for a breakaway Scotland, by some.

Havockk

J Mysterio wrote: »

ended up here through his Twitter: http://viewsofaunionist2.blogspot.ie/2017/07/why-muscular-irish-language-act-must-be.html

'The Irish language must be opposed in NI because Sinn Fein have weaponized it to stretch the link between NI and Britain.' Eh... Ok.

It's a depressingly real fact that the DUP have selected him to represent them in the future. Mr Pankhurst rails against sectarian murder while he himself marches annually in a parade that honours Brian Robinson, a UVF terrorist who was shot by the army minutes after he killed an innocent catholic man in a random sectarian murder.

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

Don't think East Germany ever applied for membership, in the way being envisaged for a breakaway Scotland, by some.

East Germany didn't need to apply as it was seen that Germany remained only enlarged . We've got the same agreement for NI in the event of a UI. However a Celtic Federation would most certainly need to apply for membership as it would be a new country.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

However a Celtic Federation would most certainly need to apply for membership as it would be a new country.

The EU would look favourably on any application, though, since all citizens of this new country are currently EU citizens, being dragged out of the EU by perfidious Albion.

LeinsterDub

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU would look favourably on any application, though, since all citizens of this new country are currently EU citizens, being dragged out of the EU by perfidious Albion.

Perhaps or perhaps they would see it for what it was an attempt to achieve Scottish membership via loop hole. I'm not sure they would look favorably on either the membership process being ignored or at the long term prospects of such a sham Federation. The entire discussion is moot anything as it will never happen.

BonnieSituation

So that whole Brexit thing...

jm08

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

Not sure about that. I remember when during the Scottish Ref, it seems that surprisingly Scottish catholics (of Irish heritage) were voting to remain in the UK because they didn't want to be left at the mercy of Scottish nationalists. Bigotry is alive and well in Scotland.

Skedaddle

The reality is that Scotland's probably got more to lose out of the UK than out of the EU. The key task for Scotland and Northern Ireland should be to stop Brexit.

The DUP is singularly to blame for whatever happens to Northern Ireland. They are the only party who could pull the plug on all of this, but they won't due to their narrow-minded, right wing and sectarian agenda.

jm08

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

While I wouldn't veto their application, I would not trust the Scots as far as I could throw them. Twice, the Scottish Rugby Union have thrown the IRFU under a bus. 1st time was to break ranks on Heinken Cup (basically they were bought off by BT sponsorship) and most recently over the hosting of the Rugby World Cup when they voted for France because they would get more money out of it (likewise the Welsh).

seamus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So that whole Brexit thing...

It is funny, but it's all interlinked. The collapse of Stormont, talks of united Ireland, "Celtic Federation", are all linked to Brexit.

The DUP have a material interest in collapsing the Stormont talks - with direct rule in place and the Tories reliant on the DUP for power, what they see is a golden opportunity to rule Northern Ireland on their own, from Westminster.

They know the Tories are largely unconcerned with the goings-on in their little corner, but are desperate to hold onto power. So the DUP can put forward any old proposal for NI and get Westminster to approve it...or else.

They're too short-sighted though to recognise the damage that will do to them. Westminster doesn't care about NI, to that end they're right. But it also means that Westminster will sacrifice NI for a better Brexit deal, no matter how much the DUP kick and scream.

The collapse of TM's government is imminent; maybe not before Brexit, but definitely not long after. And once that's done, the DUP are finished. They'll have played their hand and proven themselves to the people of NI to be completely incapable of anything but small-minded bigoted politics. No party in Westminster will ever look to them for a coalition again, and the people of NI will come to understand that Unionism when the union doesn't care about you, is subservience.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

The collapse of TM's government is imminent; maybe not before Brexit, but definitely not long after. And once that's done, the DUP are finished. They'll have played their hand and proven themselves to the people of NI to be completely incapable of anything but small-minded bigoted politics. No party in Westminster will ever look to them for a coalition again, and the people of NI will come to understand that Unionism when the union doesn't care about you, is subservience.

Not sure if that is naviety or wishful thinking.

The people that vote for them to do out of small-minded bigoted politics. It is the same across the whole of NI. Some may change between UUP and DUP or SF SDLP but never more than that.

Any party will look to them for coalition if the numbers present themselves. You think it was May's 1st choice? She accepted there crazy positions because it allowed her to hold onto power. Any position is open to negotiation when the end prize is power.

The UK may nore 'care' about NI, but it pays a lot of money to keep things ticking along and allows them to keep things the way they like them. What is the alternative? To go into a United Ireland, to be oppressed and treated as second class citizens (this is their thinking not mine).

Professor Moriarty

jm08 wrote: »

Not sure about that. I remember when during the Scottish Ref, it seems that surprisingly Scottish catholics (of Irish heritage) were voting to remain in the UK because they didn't want to be left at the mercy of Scottish nationalists. Bigotry is alive and well in Scotland.

Well, I don't live in Scotland. My opinion is based on my knowledge of their education system, laws and SNP policies. These would all be in alignment with the centre ground as represented by FG/FF/Lab. The OO and the Old Firm apart, I'm not aware of any great endemic discrimination. Happy to be corrected on that.

jm08

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, I don't live in Scotland. My opinion is based on my knowledge of their education system, laws and SNP policies. These would all be in alignment with the centre ground as represented by FG/FF/Lab. The OO and the Old Firm apart, I'm not aware of any great endemic discrimination. Happy to be corrected on that.

Its not discrimination (possibly because of the influence of Westminister). The Scottish Parliament hasn't been around that long and Scotland could possibly have ended up like Northern Ireland if they too had been left to their own devices like the old Stormont Government was.

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not sure if that is naviety or wishful thinking.

A little bit of both perhaps. The demographics of the North are shifting towards the 30-50 age group; those who've had one foot firmly on each side of the GFA - who understand the pain and suffering of the past and the freedom and prosperity that peace brings.

I guess I'm hopeful that these people can see through the racism and sectarian hatred that drives DUP policy and will choose to go a different direction for their childrens' sakes.

Enzokk

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 would guess in the event of a vote to have a united Ireland you will not have very big unionist support as a whole any more. Isn't the whole point of a unionist party to keep NI as part of the UK? So if the vote is for a UI, then surely all Unionist parties will have lost their support as their whole point of existing will have disappeared?

BonnieSituation

jm08 wrote: »

Its not discrimination (possibly because of the influence of Westminister). The Scottish Parliament hasn't been around that long and Scotland could possibly have ended up like Northern Ireland if they too had been left to their own devices like the old Stormont Government was.

Partition is the root cause of these issues. Scotland doesn't have that baggage whatever about their Unionist cohort and sectarianism.

It's not easily comparable in the way you've tried above.

Enzokk wrote: »

I would guess in the event of a vote to have a united Ireland you will not have very big unionist support as a whole any more. Isn't the whole point of a unionist party to keep NI as part of the UK? So if the vote is for a UI, then surely all Unionist parties will have lost their support as their whole point of existing will have disappeared?

You are technically correct. But it's always more nuanced.


I mean there are "Nationalists" who want to remain part of the UK. Likewise I know of "Unionists" who wish to join with the Republic.

And that's before we get into the grey areas of cultural nationalists and kultural [sic] unionists...

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Isn't the whole point of a unionist party to keep NI as part of the UK? So if the vote is for a UI, then surely all Unionist parties will have lost their support as their whole point of existing will have disappeared?

No, it just means Unionists have dropped below 50%.

Being in a minority since 1922 has not made Nationalists give up.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

I would guess in the event of a vote to have a united Ireland you will not have very big unionist support as a whole any more. Isn't the whole point of a unionist party to keep NI as part of the UK? So if the vote is for a UI, then surely all Unionist parties will have lost their support as their whole point of existing will have disappeared?

They used to say that the Loyalist were more Loyal to the half-crown than the Crown.

In other words, the side the bread was buttered was more important than the brand of butter spread.

Will Westminster still pay out more to NI each year than the Brexiteers had trouble paying to the EU? I think that if the shoe tightens, then NI may be the first to feel it - first in farm payments, then in Gov paid jobs.

[For those who need to know, the half-crown was two shillings and six pence in pre-decimal coinage and the largest coin then in circulation. It would be quite often the amount grandparents and uncles gave to children on a visit. It would be 12 and a half pence in current currency.]

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

I doubt they would be elected to govern in a UI

it would be hilarious if they were though.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

well, apart from having a monarch, predominantly Presbytarian faith and legalised abortion, yeah, pretty much two peas from the same pod :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU would look favourably on any application, though, since all citizens of this new country are currently EU citizens, being dragged out of the EU by perfidious Albion.

do you know what Perfidious means? do you know what Albion refers to or where it came from?

Do you want to rethink your post?

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

it would be hilarious if they were though.



well, apart from having a monarch, predominantly Presbytarian faith and legalised abortion, yeah, pretty much two peas from the same pod :rolleyes:



do you know what Perfidious means? do you know what Albion refers to or where it came from?

Do you want to rethink your post?

I never use emoticons. They seem seem childish and petulant.

A couple of questions: Do you think the English queen holds much sway in Scotland apart from watery symbolism? Abortion - seriously? Predominant? Did you know that 68% of Scots are not Presbyterian.

trellheim

The collapse of TM's government is imminent; maybe not before Brexit, but definitely not long after. And once that's done, the DUP are finished. They'll have played their hand and proven themselves to the people of NI to be completely incapable of anything but small-minded bigoted politics. No party in Westminster will ever look to them for a coalition again, and the people of NI will come to understand that Unionism when the union doesn't care about you, is subservience.

I think you are right but for perhaps different reasons - naked ambition . For the Tories, definitely the shape of the deal will provoke a strong leadership challenge either way it falls

I've been considering whether there's an incredibly smart Foreign Office/DExEu strategy here or its the worst possible ; its that bad you can't tell

Havockk

Sam Russell wrote: »

They used to say that the Loyalist were more Loyal to the half-crown than the Crown.

In other words, the side the bread was buttered was more important than the brand of butter spread.

Will Westminster still pay out more to NI each year than the Brexiteers had trouble paying to the EU? I think that if the shoe tightens, then NI may be the first to feel it - first in farm payments, then in Gov paid jobs.

[For those who need to know, the half-crown was two shillings and six pence in pre-decimal coinage and the largest coin then in circulation. It would be quite often the amount grandparents and uncles gave to children on a visit. It would be 12 and a half pence in current currency.]

What if, post Brexit, the UK does indeed go an a savage campaign of radical deregulation in line with the neo-liberal thought that is endemic in elements that are currently pushing for extreme versions of brexit? NI would be very poorly positioned.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I never use emoticons. They seem seem childish and petulant.

A couple of questions: Do you think the English queen holds much sway in Scotland apart from watery symbolism? Abortion - seriously? Predominant? Did you know that 68% of Scots are not Presbyterian.

I was talking about the Queen of Scotland actually. Have you never considered why the SNP have never broached the subject?

The main faith in Scotland is the Kirk. Don’t underestimate how influential they are. Add in the influence they have in Ireland and there would be a direct conflict. I can’t see either the Presbyterian or Catholic Churches being too keen on your “Celtic alliance”.

jm08

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Partition is the root cause of these issues. Scotland doesn't have that baggage whatever about their Unionist cohort and sectarianism.

You need to think about what created the demand for partition.

It's not easily comparable in the way you've tried above.

And I think a possible explanation for that is that unlike in Northern Ireland, it only got devolved power in Scotland recently.

Havockk

Aegir wrote: »

I was talking about the Queen of Scotland actually. Have you never considered why the SNP have never broached the subject?

This specific thing is indeed 'broached' in the draft Constitution. Section 9 Here http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf

Havockk

Havockk wrote: »

This specific thing is indeed 'broached' in the draft Constitution. Section 9 Here http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00452762.pdf

I meant broached the subject of being a republic.

Which leads to the obvious question, who would be head of state in this "Celtic Federation".

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we please stay on topic. Anyone wishing to discuss Scottish independence further is welcome to start a thread.

J Mysterio

Just saw this quote, which would be a concern:

Chief negotiator Michel Barnier put it bluntly last week: “It is important to tell the truth. A UK decision to leave the single market and the customs union would make border checks unavoidable.”

Not really the language we have had untill now. Hitherto, it was more 'we cannot have a hard border'

On Withdrawal Agreement :

To prevent “backsliding”, the EU insists that discussions on the “future relationship” will not go ahead unless the WA is signed off on. That means agreement – and soon – on no-hard-Border language.

Much of the WA text is drafted and diplomats say it should not prove problematic with the UK – some text on transition sanctions against UK breaches of single market rules has already been toned down.

But the text on the Border has proved difficult to draft and the UK is showing signs of buyer’s remorse over what it agreed in December. Differences of interpretation, they say, but this is precisely what the taskforce and the Irish feared, and the reason for the “no backsliding” provision.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/irish-border-issue-is-a-legitimate-threat-to-the-brexit-talks-1.3396521?mode=amp

This part of the Phase 1 agreement was such a monumental coup:

"In the absence of agreed solutions, the UK will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South co-operation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 [Belfast] Agreement."

The British have to honour that, but it's complicated by:

"the UK will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, and the NI Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the UK will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the UK internal market. “

Thargor

I still cant believe Theresa May got to promise the DUP a billion of taxpayes money to prop her up and people just accepted it, it doesnt even get mentioned any more. It always seems to be the Right that gets away with stuff like that, imagine Corbyn pulling that stunt or Ed Milliband in order to cling to power, likewise imagine the reaction to Obama getting up to a fraction of Trumps adventures.

Sam Russell

Thargor wrote: »

I still cant believe Theresa May got to promise the DUP a billion of taxpayes money to prop her up and people just accepted it, it doesnt even get mentioned any more. It always seems to be the Right that gets away with stuff like that, imagine Corbyn pulling that stunt or Ed Milliband in order to cling to power, likewise imagine the reaction to Obama getting up to a fraction of Trumps adventures.

Has that money actually been transferred to NI, and if it has - how can it be allocated without the Assembly to sanction it?

I do not think it has been transferred and there is no mention of a vote in the H of C sanctioning it. Was it in the budget?

Why are the DUP not cutting ribbons at every cross road at all these new ventures and public works?

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Has that money actually been transferred to NI, and if it has - how can it be allocated without the Assembly to sanction it?

I do not think it has been transferred and there is no mention of a vote in the H of C sanctioning it. Was it in the budget?

Why are the DUP not cutting ribbons at every cross road at all these new ventures and public works?

I would guess that it needs Stormont approval to spend it, if they ever manage to grow up and get back in to power sharing.

J Mysterio

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why are the DUP not cutting ribbons at every cross road at all these new ventures and public works?

Cos' Stormont is closed for business. The DUP can't just run around spending with Theresa's card.

trellheim

Which is why if DUP have been banging on to get Westminster to set the budget ( essentially, direct rule ) .

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

I would guess that it needs Stormont approval to spend it, if they ever manage to grow up and get back in to power sharing.

J Mysterio wrote: »

Cos' Stormont is closed for business. The DUP can't just run around spending with Theresa's card.

So the money has not arrived, so why do the DUP continue to support TM if they have been sold short?

J Mysterio

Sam Russell wrote: »

So the money has not arrived, so why do the DUP continue to support TM if they have been sold short?

The DUP can't complain that they aren't able to spend as its incumbent upon them to form a Government in order to recieve it. Further, it was they who unilaterally collapsed the recent talks.

Thargor

J Mysterio wrote: »

The DUP can't complain that they aren't able to spend as its incumbent upon them to form a Government in order to recieve it. Further, it was they who unilaterally collapsed the recent talks.

But when Westminster sets the budget they can just stick a billion of extra demands on that, or demand an explanation when its not forthcoming...

Its still mind-boggling though.

J Mysterio

The call for direct rule is a desperate attempt by Arlene to unify, or keep NI connected with Britain.

May and co. have no desire for direct rule whatsoever. Both May and Varadkar tried to help to find agreement for Stormont but that was 'unhelpful' and a 'distraction' according to the DUP.

For them, the money is secondary now, they are frantic. They fear being ignored and cut adrift in a final deal.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

The call for direct rule is a desperate attempt by Arlene to unify, or keep NI connected with Britain.

May and co. have no desire for direct rule whatsoever. Both May and Varadkar tried to help to find agreement for Stormont but that was 'unhelpful' and a 'distraction' according to the DUP.

For them, the money is secondary now, they are frantic. They fear being ignored and cut adrift in a final deal.

But does not Direct Rule close the Assembly and so cause all MLAs to get P45s and Arlene lose the leadership of the DUP party as she is no longer an MEP, MP, or MLA as required by their constitution?

Strange for her to cause her own demise.

Nate--IRL--

I was under the impression the Westminster DUP MPs were calling the shots these days.

Nate

J Mysterio

Sam Russell wrote: »

But does not Direct Rule close the Assembly and so cause all MLAs to get P45s and Arlene lose the leadership of the DUP party as she is no longer an MEP, MP, or MLA as required by their constitution?

Strange for her to cause her own demise.

A worthy sacrifice in their eyes no? To step aside and thus to preserve the union?

As has been pointed out, the DUP would continue to try and exert influence over direct rule through their MPs and their role in propping up the Westminster government. They are playing the long game, it's misjudged however, as if (when) it goes tits up, the voters won't thank them for this.

But in terms of sacrifice, I think Arlene would accept letting the top job go if it could help, believing it could be won again. Not quite Padraic Pearse levels of selflessness. Also, she doesnt want to make the North any 'more Irish' (as she would see it) at a time when the Unionists feel insecure and people are talking about reunification.

FrancieBrady

Sam Russell wrote: »

But does not Direct Rule close the Assembly and so cause all MLAs to get P45s and Arlene lose the leadership of the DUP party as she is no longer an MEP, MP, or MLA as required by their constitution?

Strange for her to cause her own demise.

Is that true though?

I thought it was a case that it weakened her position not that she had to step down.

Junkyard Tom

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is that true though?

The DUP leader must be a sitting MP or MLA (not sure about MEP), it's in their constitution. They could change the constitution I suppose.

J Mysterio

"Although everyday matters under direct rule were handled by government departments within Northern Ireland itself, major policy was determined by the British Government's Northern Ireland Office, under the direction of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; and legislation was introduced, amended, or repealed by means of Order in Council."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_rule_(Northern_Ireland)

Junkyard Tom

Brextremist Kate Hoey (she needs to be deselected by Labour and be made an example of) has described the Good Friday Agreement as 'unsustainable'. This is very reckless. There's a lot of anger on twitter about what Hoey said.

J Mysterio

I mean... the funniest thing about Brexit is that the most tangled web to unweave is Northern Ireland. So, ironically, Britians history will prove it's undoing as regards its future aims.

They are just not approaching this with the requisite attention. Primarily, I think, as the majority of Parliament are uninformed. Even some of the better informed people through the process - who have sought to educate themselves and listen to opinion - e.g. Tony Benn, end up standing in a field in NI with no answers for it.

Junkyard Tom

Any attempt to repeal anything in the GFA should be met with mass civil disobedience in the north and elsewhere.

Skedaddle

And that's from a Labour MP. The party of Mo Mowlam and plenty of others who moved mountains to get the GFA to work.

Unbelievable!

Junkyard Tom

Skedaddle wrote: »

And that's from a Labour MP. The party of Mo Mowlam and plenty of others who moved mountains to get the GFA to work.

Unbelievable!

Pretty infuriating alright.

BonnieSituation

Skedaddle wrote: »

And that's from a Labour MP. The party of Mo Mowlam and plenty of others who moved mountains to get the GFA to work.

Unbelievable!

She's barely a Labour MP. This isn't walks like a duck, qualks like a duck situation.

I could win a seat under a labour banner in Hoey's constituency.

She's a cretinous bigoted loon. She's an old school opportunistic anti Catholic sectarian loon.