Brexit discussion thread III

Sand

The negotiations with the EU are proving tricky, and the solution is to re-open negotiations on the political settlement in Northern Ireland? That is actually pretty funny.

Havockk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Pretty infuriating alright.

I wonder will anyone politely point out to Kate the irony the GFA was voted on and passed in a referendum?

Interesting to see how this is evolving now, Hannan started this the other day in the telegraph and they are obviously trying to push it now. It's all very shadowy and I wonder how the ongoing internal tory civil war is progressing, by the sounds of it this extreme lot are winning.

J Mysterio

David Davis speech tomorrow chaps.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

David Davis speech tomorrow chaps.

There will be no deregulation after Brexit and workers' rights will be protected. That's what he's going to say. Sounds legit.

Junkyard Tom

BonnieSituation wrote: »

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

The Irish community in Britain should organise and tell the Labour leadership they will vote for the Lib-Dems if Hoey isn't deselected. She's a nasty piece of work.

Skedaddle

I think Corbyn should be asked to clarify whether this is Labour policy to undermine the GFA. If not, maybe she should explain what she's so far out of line with party policy?

This isn't some argument about a minor policy. You're talking about probably the single biggest labour party achievement.

J Mysterio

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think Corbyn should be asked to clarify whether this is Labour policy to undermine the GFA. If not, maybe she should explain what she's so far out of line with party policy?

Corbyn is a noncomittal coward anyway. The worst opposition ever? He's barely made any noise while the UK collapses around him
The guy is a joke.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Corbyn is a noncomittal coward anyway. The worst opposition ever? He's barely made any noise while the UK collapses around him
The guy is a joke.

For all his faults, if Blair was leading Labour he'd have torn May to shreds. Corbyn is more of a dead sheep savager.

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

The Irish community in Britain should organise and tell the Labour leadership they will vote for the Lib-Dems if Hoey isn't deselected. She's a nasty piece of work.

I'm on it. I've sent an email to my local Labour rep and Jeremy Corbyn, John mcdonald ect. I think Hoey comes across as a complete fanatic. A dangerous woman with eyes only for her own side.

J Mysterio

"The Taoiseach Leo Varadkar spoke by telephone with the British Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday evening regarding the recent collapse of powersharing talks in the North.

The call followed a meeting between the Taoiseach and Tánaiste Simon Coveney and Sinn Féin’s Mary Lou McDonald and Michelle O’Neill to review recent developments in the north.

The Taoiseach emphasised the Government’s full commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, and its determination to secure the effective operation of all its institutions.

In a statement following the meeting Mr Varadkar said: “As co-guarantor to the agreement, the Government will continue to engage with the parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government to support the urgent formation of a new Executive by the mandated political parties.

“The Government’s firm position is that the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent agreements must be implemented in full, and in this context the Taoiseach and Tánaiste reiterated that the Irish Government does not want to see the introduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-tells-may-he-does-not-want-direct-rule-in-north-1.3397977?mode=amp

Skedaddle

It's almost as if the UK is about to meltdown into chaos. I see nothing but people looking for fights and dogmatic shouting, name-calling and general nonsense.

It's frustrating and depressing to watch. It's like the political version of football hooligans facing off and hurling abuse across a stadium.


I'm not even in the UK and you can smell the stench of toxic politics wafting across channel.

Nothing good can come of this.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

It's almost as if the auK is about to meltdown into chaos. I see nothing but people looking for gifts and dogmatic shouting, name-calling and general nonsense.

It's frustrating and depressing to watch. It's like the political version of football hooligans facing off and hurling abuse across a stadium.

Nothing good can come of this.

Never a truer word spoken.

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm on it. I've sent an email to my local Labour rep and Jeremy Corbyn, John mcdonald ect. I think Hoey comes across as a complete fanatic. A dangerous woman with eyes only for her own side.

Fair play to you. Keep us posted please.

Hurrache

This guy, former spin I think, offers a thread as to why the more looney side of the Brexiteers are having issues with the GFA and attacking it.

https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/965714593728417798

J Mysterio

"Theresa May’s former deputy has warned that the UK is in danger of adopting “faith-based” Brexit policies if ministers ignore economic forecasts predicting a hit to the British economy.

Damian Green called for all economic forecasting of the UK’s withdrawal plans to be released and for the public to be allowed an open debate on how the country should proceed."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-brexit-uk-faith-damian-green-british-economy-tory-cabinet-a8218111.html

Junkyard Tom

Hurrache wrote: »

This guy, former spin I think, offers a thread as to why the more looney side of the Brexiteers are having issues with the GFA and attacking it.

https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/965714593728417798

Previously, I've posted a link to Michael Gove's anti-GFA pamphlet (it's quite scary) and it just so happened that in the wake of the DUP/CON's alliance Gove was put in a ministerial role that would give the DUP a lot of contact with him.

Are the DUP in the process of destroying the peace settlement they never wanted?

Professor Moriarty

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Previously, I've posted a link to Michael Gove's anti-GFA pamphlet (it's quite scary) and it just so happened that in the wake of the DUP/CON's alliance Gove was put in a ministerial role that would give the DUP a lot of contact with him.

Are the DUP in the process of destroying the peace settlement they never wanted?

The GFA would be a handy last throw of the dice if Brexit negotiations tank. I see this as a veiled threat to Ireland - support us in our negotiations and don't make a fuss or look what might happen.

Peregrinus

The ultra-Brexiteers' assault on the Good Friday Agreement comes too late. The UK government has already committed to the EU that the Good Friday Agreement "must be protected in all its parts, and that this extends to the practical application of the 1998 Agreement on the island of Ireland and to the totality of the relationships set out in the Agreement". The UK government has acknowledged and reaffirmed "its commitment to protecting the operation of the 1998 Agreement". And of course one of the objectives for which the UK has commited to maintain "full alignment" in Northern Ireland is "the protection of the 1998 Agreement".

Any withdrawal agreement that the UK makes with the EU is going to reflect that; that is already explicitly agreed on both sides.

It's absolutely typical brexitry, really. The whole project is rooted in ignorance, which means that brexiteers literally have no idea what they need to do to realise their objectives. By the time they work out what it is they want, it is too late. The initiative has been taken by people who have some clue what is involved, and who have thought about what they need to do to acheive their objectives, and the end result is that the brexiteers find they were headed off at the pass before they even knew that there was a pass.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The GFA would be a handy last throw of the dice if Brexit negotiations tank. I see this as a veiled threat to Ireland - support us in our negotiations and don't make a fuss or look what might happen.

No. They just cant go there. The UK reputation is already being dragged through the mud. Tearing up the GFA would cause civil unrest and would see global protest and diplomatic disaster. That would literally be the end for the UK.

Skedaddle

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Previously, I've posted a link to Michael Gove's anti-GFA pamphlet (it's quite scary) and it just so happened that in the wake of the DUP/CON's alliance Gove was put in a ministerial role that would give the DUP a lot of contact with him.

Are the DUP in the process of destroying the peace settlement they never wanted?

Well this is PRECISELY what pretty much anyone who knows anything about NI predicted would happen if the Tories went into office supported by the DUP.
We said that the British government would start to become unable to be co guarantor of the agreement in a neutral way and it was all brushed aside as nonsense.

Now look where we are !!!

Any statesman or stateswoman would have walked away and gone for fresh elections or formed a grand coalition or done anything other than go into government with one faction of the Northern Irish conflict.

History is going to look back on this period as utter madness.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

No. They just cant go there. The UK reputation is already being dragged through the mud. Tearing up the GFA would cause civil unrest and would see global protest and diplomatic disaster. That would literally be the end for the UK.

You're probably right but if they are going to seriously crash and burn they might take others with them out of spite. The Tory press is well able to whip up all sorts of hubris. However, I see them making these noises as a form of sabre rattling rather than anything they will actually go through with. Like I say, a veiled threat.

Peregrinus

May is giving speeches about the need not to allow "deep-seated ideology" to mean that the security and safety it citizens is not jeopardised. At the same time her ultra-Brexiteer backbenchers are going around suggesting that the GFA should be dumped.

How much longer will this dysfunctional excuse for a party be allowed to bring the UK into ridicule and derision?

steddyeddy

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Previously, I've posted a link to Michael Gove's anti-GFA pamphlet (it's quite scary) and it just so happened that in the wake of the DUP/CON's alliance Gove was put in a ministerial role that would give the DUP a lot of contact with him.

Are the DUP in the process of destroying the peace settlement they never wanted?

It's shocking how many people in government have learned nothing about Northern Ireland. Extremelly dangerous thinking.

Did anyone actually read the article? Because Kate Hoey said it in relation to power sharing in Stirmont, it has nothing to do with Brexit.

So just to recap, over the last few pages, we have gone from a labour MP saying that the collapse of Stormont may mean a long hard look at the Belfast agreement to now ripping up the GFA being part of the governments desperate Brexit policy.

Good work guys, good work.

Peregrinus

I don't think rippping up the GFA is part of the government's "desperate Brexit strategy". FWIW, I don't think the government has a Brexit strategy, but they have already ruled out ripping up the GFA.

But nor do I think its a coincidence that several Brexiteer MPs in the UK are expressing opposition to the GFA after it has emerged that the GFA is a major obstacle to their project.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think rippping up the GFA is part of the government's "desperate Brexit strategy". FWIW, I don't think the government has a Brexit strategy, but they have already ruled out ripping up the GFA.

But nor do I think its a coincidence that several Brexiteer MPs in the UK are expressing opposition to the GFA after it has emerged that the GFA is a major obstacle to their project.

You said Brexiteer backbenchers. Hoey is a Labour MP.

I think you fell in to the”2+2= 5” outrage trap there.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

You said Brexiteer backbenchers. Hoey is a Labour MP.

I think you fell in to the”2+2= 5” outrage trap there.

I'm aware that Hoey is a Labour MP. How could I forget it? It's one of the most surprising things about her.

Owen Paterson, however, is a Tory MP, and it was him I was thinking of. I think if May wants her protestations about not allowing ideology to jeopardise security to be taken seriously she needs to publicly distance herself from Paterson's views.

(And, to pick nits, both Paterson and Hoey, of course, are backbenchers, albeit that Hoey is not one of May's backbenchers.)

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm aware that Hoey is a Labour MP. Owen Paterson, however, is a Tory MP, and it was him I was thinking of. I think if May wants her protestations about not allowing ideology to jeopardise security to be taken seriously she needs to publicly distance herself from Paterson.

(And, to pick nits, both Paterson and Hoey, of course, are backbenchers, albeit that Hoey is not one of May's backbenchers.)

it is click bait from the Huff Post. This is completely unrelated to Brexit.

The two political parties have let down their electorate badly, firstly SF pulled a political stunt to maximise the effect of Martin McGuinness having to step down (it appears that despite collapsing Stormont because they couldn't share power with Arlene Foster, they are now quite happy to do so) and then the DUP want to maximise their five minutes of fame by being childish and petulant.

All Kate Hoey has said was that compulsory power sharing was unsustainable in the long run, because Sinn Fein quite clearly don't want a stable Northern Ireland. She has a point and also quite clearly states that the GFA has been amended previously.

Now, in good old SFOS fashion, we have a memo written eight years ago being pulled in to it to spin the non story further.

Havockk

Aegir wrote: »

it is click bait from the Huff Post. This is completely unrelated to Brexit.

The two political parties have let down their electorate badly, firstly SF pulled a political stunt to maximise the effect of Martin McGuinness having to step down (it appears that despite collapsing Stormont because they couldn't share power with Arlene Foster, they are now quite happy to do so) and then the DUP want to maximise their five minutes of fame by being childish and petulant.

All Kate Hoey has said was that compulsory power sharing was unsustainable in the long run, because Sinn Fein quite clearly don't want a stable Northern Ireland. She has a point and also quite clearly states that the GFA has been amended previously.

Now, in good old SFOS fashion, we have a memo written eight years ago being pulled in to it to spin the non story further.

The DUP had nothing to do with pulling out of a deal to restore the executive at the last minute.

And yes,it's all a coincidence that there are a number of pro-brexit MP's orchestrating an attack on the GFA. Probably nothing to do with the legal implications of the GFA and the hurdle it would prove to be in the face of said brexit. Kate Hoey is just a contentious and well meaning politician.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

it is click bait from the Huff Post. This is completely unrelated to Brexit.

The two political parties have let down their electorate badly, firstly SF pulled a political stunt to maximise the effect of Martin McGuinness having to step down (it appears that despite collapsing Stormont because they couldn't share power with Arlene Foster, they are now quite happy to do so) and then the DUP want to maximise their five minutes of fame by being childish and petulant.

All Kate Hoey has said was that compulsory power sharing was unsustainable in the long run, because Sinn Fein quite clearly don't want a stable Northern Ireland. She has a point and also quite clearly states that the GFA has been amended previously.

Now, in good old SFOS fashion, we have a memo written eight years ago being pulled in to it to spin the non story further.

Whatever about click bait I think you are deluding yourself if you think undermining the GFA to smooth the way of Brexit is not the goal here

Peregrinus

No, it's not just Kate Hoey. The Telegraph ran an anti-GFA piece by Ruth Dudley Edwards on 15 February; Owen Paterson tweeted it the following day. And then on 17 February, Daniel Hannan MEP has a piece in the Daily Telegraph, denouncing Jeremy Corbyn and all his works and pomps and laying into the GFA, and he tweets a link to it in which he repeats and underlines his claim that "the Good Friday Agreement has failed".

So, suddenly, three different Brexiteers, for apparently unconnected reasons, find it timely to denounce the Good Friday Agreement? The same GFA to which the UK government recomitted itself in the phase 1 agreement, and which is such an obstacle to the realisation of the ultra-Brexiteers vision?

I'm not saying, please note, that this is a co-ordinated plot. It's possible that in Brexity circles it is only just dawning on them how much of an obstacle the GFA represents, and that they are all talking about this. Hoey, Hannan and Paterson are presumably all influenced by the same Brexity discourse, and at least two of them are already on record as disliking the GFA. It's entirely possible that they would each conclude independently that now was the time for each of them to express, or re-express, their criticisms of the GFA.

The point is not any supposed conspiracy or plot. The point is that the ultra-Brexiteer vision does require the trashing of the GFA, and a brexity push for that does seem to be building. And, ironically, this happens at just the moment that Teresa May thinks it right to suggest that pro-European ideology may jeopardise the security and safety of citizens. Look behind you, Teresa!

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not just Kate Hoey. The Telegraph ran an anti-GFA piece by Ruth Dudley Edwards on 15 February; Owen Paterson tweeted it the following day. And then on 17 February, Daniel Hannan MEP has a piece in the Daily Telegraph, denouncing Jeremy Corbyn and all his works and pomps and laying into the GFA, and he tweets a link to it in which he repeats and underlines his claim that "the Good Friday Agreement has failed".

So, suddenly, three different Brexiteers, for apparently unconnected reasons, find it timely to denounce the Good Friday Agreement? The same GFA to which the UK government recomitted itself in the phase 1 agreement, and which is such an obstacle to the realisation of the ultra-Brexiteers vision?

I'm not saying, please note, that this is a co-ordinated plot. It's possible that in Brexity circles it is only just dawning on them how much of an obstacle the GFA represents, and that they are all talking about this. Hoey, Hannan and Paterson are presumably all influenced by the same Brexity discourse, and at least two of them are already on record as disliking the GFA. It's entirely possible that they would each conclude independently that now was the time for each of them to express, or re-express, their criticisms of the GFA.

The point is not any supposed conspiracy or plot. The point is that the ultra-Brexiteer vision does require the trashing of the GFA, and a brexity push for that does seem to be building. And, ironically, this happens at just the moment that Teresa May thinks it right to suggest that pro-European ideology may jeopardise the security and safety of citizens. Look behind you, Teresa!

and none of this has anything to do with, you know, the failed attempts to get Stormont up and running again, it is all a pro Brexit plot?

Kate Hoey has previously stated that she sees no reason why there needs to be a hard border, but suddenly she wants one, is that what people are trying to infer?

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

and none of this has anything to do with, you know, the failed attempts to get Stormont up and running again, it is all a pro Brexit plot?

I explicitly said it's not a plot, Aegir. I'm just pointing to the irony of May warning against pro-European ideology jeopardising safety and security while pro-Brexit ideology is doing exactly that.

Aegir wrote: »

Kate Hoey has previously stated that she sees no reason why there needs to be a hard border, but suddenly she wants one, is that what people are trying to infer?

Well, that would be Brexit in a nutshell, wouldn't it? Constantly proclaiming that they want particular outcomes while simultaneously demanding measures which will preclude those very outcomes. "We want frictionless trade, but we must leave the single market and the customs union, the very mechanisms developed to deliver frictionless trade. We want to take back control of our borders but we want an open border. We think no deal is better than a bad deal, but we threaten to sue the EU if they make plans on the basis that there may be no deal."

So, yeah, Kate Hoey sees no reason why their needs to be hard border, while advocating policies that will require a hard border. Nothing in the least surprising about that.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I explicitly said it's not a plot, Aegir. I'm just pointing to the irony of May warning against pro-European ideology jeopardising safety and security while pro-Brexit ideology is doing exactly that.


Well, that would be Brexit in a nutshell, wouldn't it? Constantly proclaiming that they want particular outcomes while simultaneously demanding measures which will preclude those very outcomes. "We want frictionless trade, but we must leave the single market and the customs union, the very mechanisms developed to deliver frictionless trade. We want to take back control of our borders but we want an open border. We think no deal is better than a bad deal, but we threaten to sue the EU if they make plans on the basis that there may be no deal."

So, yeah, Kate Hoey sees no reason why their needs to be hard border, while advocating policies that will require a hard border. Nothing in the least surprising about that.

you didn't respond to me first point.

Is this completely unrelated to the inability of the Northern Ireland power sharing executive to form a working government?

Trying to link this to Brexit is tenuous to say the least. No one has said the GFA needs ripping up, just that it needs to be amended to try and force the two parties back in to power, the alternatives are either no Stormont or direct rule, both of which are a far bigger threat to the GFA than amending it.

Just because someone supports Brexit, it doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on Northern Ireland, especially when they have a direct interest in what goes on there.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

it is click bait from the Huff Post. This is completely unrelated to Brexit.

The two political parties have let down their electorate badly, firstly SF pulled a political stunt to maximise the effect of Martin McGuinness having to step down (it appears that despite collapsing Stormont because they couldn't share power with Arlene Foster, they are now quite happy to do so) and then the DUP want to maximise their five minutes of fame by being childish and petulant.

All Kate Hoey has said was that compulsory power sharing was unsustainable in the long run, because Sinn Fein quite clearly don't want a stable Northern Ireland. She has a point and also quite clearly states that the GFA has been amended previously.

Now, in good old SFOS fashion, we have a memo written eight years ago being pulled in to it to spin the non story further.

I think you are too quick to dismiss the attack on the GFA by Brexiteers. As other have pointed out there is one huge obstacle to those wanting a clean break from the EU and those willing to impose a hard border between the EU and UK. That is the GFA and the UK government indicating that they will protect it to move the talks from phase 1 to phase 2.

So if the GFA is not an in play where NI, and due to the DUP the UK, had to align with Ireland and the EU in certain sectors as per the agreement then there is no reason for the UK to have customs alignment (or whatever wording they will call a customs union) with the EU.

And there is nothing to see here?

Econ_

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it's not just Kate Hoey. The Telegraph ran an anti-GFA piece by Ruth Dudley Edwards on 15 February; Owen Paterson tweeted it the following day. And then on 17 February, Daniel Hannan MEP has a piece in the Daily Telegraph, denouncing Jeremy Corbyn and all his works and pomps and laying into the GFA, and he tweets a link to it in which he repeats and underlines his claim that "the Good Friday Agreement has failed".

So, suddenly, three different Brexiteers, for apparently unconnected reasons, find it timely to denounce the Good Friday Agreement? The same GFA to which the UK government recomitted itself in the phase 1 agreement, and which is such an obstacle to the realisation of the ultra-Brexiteers vision?

I'm not saying, please note, that this is a co-ordinated plot. It's possible that in Brexity circles it is only just dawning on them how much of an obstacle the GFA represents, and that they are all talking about this. Hoey, Hannan and Paterson are presumably all influenced by the same Brexity discourse, and at least two of them are already on record as disliking the GFA. It's entirely possible that they would each conclude independently that now was the time for each of them to express, or re-express, their criticisms of the GFA.

The point is not any supposed conspiracy or plot. The point is that the ultra-Brexiteer vision does require the trashing of the GFA, and a brexity push for that does seem to be building. And, ironically, this happens at just the moment that Teresa May thinks it right to suggest that pro-European ideology may jeopardise the security and safety of citizens. Look behind you, Teresa!

I think this tells us which part of the December agreement that the Tories are positioning themselves to renege on.

Remember that Theresa May is just a puppet for the hard Brexiteers in the ERG.

Skedaddle

I think the point being missed is that they simply don't care about the GFA. It's an obstacle to Brexit and they feel it must be removed.

You're talking, in some cases, about people who will ignore and even oppress very sane, reasoned and logical technical economic advice that contradicts their point of view on Brexit!

The reality is most of them don't care about NI, see it as politically irrelevant and trouble making.

That's allowing the a DUP to drive their agenda as nobody really gives hoot shoot Ni as long as it's not going to get in the way of Brexit.

The debate in England is too short-sighted and naval gazing to want to understand what the GFA is or why undermining it is so dangerous. NI is barely over the troubles and this could really cause big issues.

I really don't think there's any plot to undermine the GFA. It's just, in their minds, more red tape to be cut.

ancapailldorcha

I really wish that this government would get its act together and decide what it wants given that we're approaching the 2 year anniversary of the referendum vote. David Davis today has had to invoke Mad Max to reassure people:

David Davis will tell business leaders in Austria that fears the Conservatives will plunge Britain into a “Mad Max-style world borrowed from dystopian fiction” after leaving the EU are unfounded.

The Brexit secretary will claim that Theresa May’s government wants to oversee a race to the top in global standards, listing workers’ rights, City regulation, animal welfare and the environment as areas for potential improvement.

In the latest speech in the government’s “road to Brexit” series, Davis will say: “We will continue our track record of meeting high standards after we leave the European Union. Now, I know that for one reason or another there are some people who have sought to question that these really are our intentions … these fears about a race to the bottom are based on nothing – not history, not intention nor interest.”

J Mysterio

Its amazing that - what, two weeks ago? - they announced a series of more speeches. These are going nowhere.

Boris tries to say Brexit will be positive.. and fails to encourage any optimism. Now Davis says 'we will keep high standards'. Great.

We can all look forward to another nothing speech from May... next week?

They are wasting so much time and doing nothing substantive. The path through this disaster is even less clear than it was in December.

CelticRambler

Here's an insight into why there's no reasoning with True Believer, start at 4m18s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbnG6KDaF0

Fruit farmer, voted for Brexit even though he knew it would harm his business - but thinks it's a price worth paying for the greater good.

Post referendum, he can't get the EU immigrant staff to pick all his fruit, but says that the UK can solve the problem by finding cheap immigrant labour from outside the EU.

WTF?

Skedaddle

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here's an insight into why there's no reasoning with True Believer, start at 4m18s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJbnG6KDaF0

Fruit farmer, voted for Brexit even though he knew it would harm his business - but thinks it's a price worth paying for the greater good.

Post referendum, he can't get the EU immigrant staff to pick all his fruit, but says that the UK can solve the problem by finding cheap immigrant labour from outside the EU.

WTF?

In other words, they just hate the EU .. there's no particular logic to it beyond that.
It's total irrationality in search of a rational explanation to make it look semi-respectable.

I saw a TV presenter ask someone in an audience what specifically it was she didn't like about the EU and after a long pause she mumbled something about 'bendy bananas'

I'm not arguing for people to have some kind of undying love for all things EU or to be totally uncritical of it. I'm hugely critical of many things it does, but the way it's being painted as some kind of evil empire is absolute hysterical nonsense and it's done nothing to engender any kind of reasonable discussion about the issues in the UK.

Leroy42

Aegir, you seem to want to look at any incident in total isolation, without any recourse to the other events that impact on it.

So yes, from that perspective, you could take the view the the failure to restart NI assembly has nothing to do with Brexit, and that the recent calls for a review of the GFA is simply opportune timing by those involved, as if they think that their statements will not be taken within the context of the current Brexit negotiations.

But, one must consider what part the UK government played, or didn't, in the recent talks to get Stormont back. Since May needs the DUP for her job, do you think she pushed Arlene particularly hard to find a deal? And since the entire focus of May and her government is on Brexit, do you not think that losing the support of the DUP, and thus losing control of Brexit, didn't play a role?

And in terms of the recent commentary on the GFA. This are the same MP's that are crying out for democracy to be respected, so much so that the EU should simply give UK whatever it wishes on the basis that the UK had a democratic vote. Yet they appear to think that the GFA is ripe for a review, despite it being democratically selected and in operation for many years.

Looking back to end conclusion of Phase 1, it is clear that if people weren't aware of the potential issues that the GFA would throw up, they certainly do now. Clearly, May was ready to sign off on a sea border, keeping NI within the EU and Britain outside. That was the deal that was thought to be agreed prior to Arlene Foster getting involved. So clearly the UK government understands the practical implications of the GFA, otherwise why would they even think of such a scenario?

So I'm afraid that the NI question and Brexit and now linked, far more than it appears anybody in the UK forethought.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aegir, you seem to want to look at any incident in total isolation, without any recourse to the other events that impact on it.

and conversely, everything that is going on in the UK is being linked to Brexit.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So yes, from that perspective, you could take the view the the failure to restart NI assembly has nothing to do with Brexit, and that the recent calls for a review of the GFA is simply opportune timing by those involved, as if they think that their statements will not be taken within the context of the current Brexit negotiations.

But, one must consider what part the UK government played, or didn't, in the recent talks to get Stormont back. Since May needs the DUP for her job, do you think she pushed Arlene particularly hard to find a deal? And since the entire focus of May and her government is on Brexit, do you not think that losing the support of the DUP, and thus losing control of Brexit, didn't play a role?

not reaching agreement over Stormont has nothing to do with Brexit. They have been negotiating for months now and this isn't the first time.

The DUP won't pull their support for May and even if they did, it would take a vote of no confidence for the government to fall. The DUP don't want this bedcause it could mean a pro Sinn Fein labour in power and lets face it, no one wants Labour in power any less than Labour themselves.

Leroy42 wrote: »

And in terms of the recent commentary on the GFA. This are the same MP's that are crying out for democracy to be respected, so much so that the EU should simply give UK whatever it wishes on the basis that the UK had a democratic vote. Yet they appear to think that the GFA is ripe for a review, despite it being democratically selected and in operation for many years.

Reviewing the GFA isn't undemocratic. Changing it against the wishes of the people is. It has reviewed and added to in the past and if it isn't working as well as it should, which it obviously isn't, then why not review it?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Looking back to end conclusion of Phase 1, it is clear that if people weren't aware of the potential issues that the GFA would throw up, they certainly do now. Clearly, May was ready to sign off on a sea border, keeping NI within the EU and Britain outside. That was the deal that was thought to be agreed prior to Arlene Foster getting involved. So clearly the UK government understands the practical implications of the GFA, otherwise why would they even think of such a scenario?

So I'm afraid that the NI question and Brexit and now linked, far more than it appears anybody in the UK forethought.

we have no idea what the initial deal was that Arlene Foster rejected, we only have speculation and wishful thinking. My reading of it was that it was a simple case of Arlene throwing her toys out of the pram because she wasn't consulted and Leo was. The final deal didn't really change, it was just clarified to Arlene what it meant.

J Mysterio

Aegir wrote: »

The final deal didn't really change, it was just clarified to Arlene what it meant.

That's not the case. It did change. For one, 'no divergence' was replaced with 'full alignment' and for two, they added the following paragraph which most certainly complicates matters:

"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. “

J Mysterio

Davis is still in focking dreamland.

“The agreement we strike will not be about how to build convergence but what to do when one of us wants to make changes to rules. Neither side should put up unnecessary barriers during this process,” he will say.

“Take a car produced here in Austria to be exported to the UK. Currently that vehicle only has to undergo one series of approvals, in one country, to show that it meets the required regulatory standards. And those approvals are accepted across the European Union. That’s exactly the sort of arrangement we want to see maintained even after we leave the European Union.”

The current regulatory regime Mr Davis describes is part of the single market, which Theresa May has promised that Britain will leave when it exits the EU.

...

Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mr Davis might as well be making the case for remaining in the EU rather than leaving it.

“He appears to be acknowledging the great achievements of the single market – a British idea introduced by a British government – yet the Conservatives want to leave that and the customs union.

“They want all the advantages of staying in the single market and customs union while leaving it, which is clearly an absurd negotiating position,” said Sir Vince.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-will-not-create-mad-max-dystopia-says-davis-1.3398094

Leroy42

Hold on, who decides on these regulatory standards that Davies want only one approval? Will it the EU, the UK or both. And if there is divergence, who gets to the deciding vote? Surely the EU as the bigger player of the two.

But then isn't that the UK agreeing to convergent standards, but now without any actual say in the matter?

If that is the speech he is given, and a speech is a distillation of a position, then how messed up is there thinking prior to writing it down?

It was the same for May. We want all security matters to stay the same. Great, as do the EU. Problem is, the UK have decided to leave the club on the basis that they don't like being told what to do. How can the EU enter into a convergent standards agreement with a country that has just voted that it wants nothing to do with convergent standards?

trellheim

On the GFA it looks as if a memo has gone around to the Brexit chiefs " this looks like a serious obstacle"

Security is an easy one ; everyone wants the UK in the house and they're all mostly in NATO anyway

From what Davis is saying i cant see it without them guaranteeing to follow EU regus

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hold on, who decides on these regulatory standards that Davies want only one approval? Will it the EU, the UK or both. And if there is divergence, who gets to the deciding vote? Surely the EU as the bigger player of the two.

But then isn't that the UK agreeing to convergent standards, but now without any actual say in the matter?

No it's much better than that; UK wants to have different standards but ask EU to trust them that they will be good enough anyway; no I'm not joking.

Britain wants a Brexit trade deal that gives it free, unrestricted access to EU markets but where it was “not required to obey European rules”, David Davis has said.

Speaking to business leaders in Vienna the Brexit Secretary rejected the idea that the UK has to stay aligned with EU regulations to avoid trade barriers, and called for “mutual recognition” between the two regulatory regimes to avoid cutting British firms off from the continent.

Mr Davis said the EU and UK should “trust each others’ regulations and the institutions that enforce them, with a robust and independent arbitration mechanism” – that he suggested could be comprised of a representative from both sides with an independent chair.

This is coming from a government who had to be taken to EU court to follow the law and now asks Eu to trust them after their fumbling around...

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Davis is still in focking dreamland.

“The agreement we strike will not be about how to build convergence but what to do when one of us wants to make changes to rules. Neither side should put up unnecessary barriers during this process,” he will say.

“Take a car produced here in Austria to be exported to the UK. Currently that vehicle only has to undergo one series of approvals, in one country, to show that it meets the required regulatory standards. And those approvals are accepted across the European Union. That’s exactly the sort of arrangement we want to see maintained even after we leave the European Union.”

The current regulatory regime Mr Davis describes is part of the single market, which Theresa May has promised that Britain will leave when it exits the EU.

...

Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mr Davis might as well be making the case for remaining in the EU rather than leaving it.

“He appears to be acknowledging the great achievements of the single market – a British idea introduced by a British government – yet the Conservatives want to leave that and the customs union.

“They want all the advantages of staying in the single market and customs union while leaving it, which is clearly an absurd negotiating position,” said Sir Vince.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-will-not-create-mad-max-dystopia-says-davis-1.3398094

It's the usual nutty routine from the Brexiteers. Britain wants to be half in and half out of the Single Market : accessing all the good stuff whilst ignoring the pesky and awkward things like EU rules and regulations.

Skedaddle

There's a point where the markets and investors will get fed up with this and turn on them. It's not remotely credible!

Are they proposing setting up some kind of new EU-like body to govern relations between the EU and the UK? The EU isn't going to accept what's being proposed. It's absolutely bluster.