Brexit discussion thread IV

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a number of problems with an NI-only referendum about the backstop. Some have already been mentioned.

One major problem is this; a referendum inviting NI to choose between (a) a hard border with the Republic, and (b) increased controls on NI/GB trade is essentially saying to them “which, of two things that we already know you don’t want, do you want?” This would really drive home the disdain and disregard with which NI has been treated throughout the entire Brexit project. That can only be inflammatory.

Secondly, as others have already mentioned, what are the Scots going to think? It’s correct to say that the particular package on offer to NI is not on offer to Scotland, so a Scottish referendum on that exact package would be pointless. But Scotland is even remainier than Northern Ireland - the “Remain” margin over “Leave” in Scotland was 24% in 2016, and it has almost certainly gone up since - and if the UK would countenance a special deal for Scotland there are undoubtedly models which would appeal to Scotland that the EU would be keen to offer. So the Scots Nats would point out that Scotland was getting even sh!ttier treatment than NI - no consideration of any deal to accommodate Scotland’s interests and desires, and no say for Scotland in that decision.

Let's not forget that the people if the ROI would need to be consulted on precisely what sort of unification is being offered and what the consequences - societal, cultural, economic etc. - would emanate from a Yes result. It's all very well to hold the simplistic goal of a UI in mind but the reality might be very different to the ideal. As Britain is finding out about Brexit, ironically.

Inquitus

Good response from the Latvian Ambassador to the UK to this ridiculous Telegraph front page prompted by Jeremy Hunt's speech at the Tory conference.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1046510735529058304

https://twitter.com/BaibaBraze/status/1046442294684123139

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Let's not forget that the people if the ROI would need to be consulted on precisely what sort of unification is being offered and what the consequences - societal, cultural, economic etc. - would emanate from a Yes result. It's all very well to hold the simplistic goal of a UI in mind but the reality might be very different to the ideal. As Britain is finding out about Brexit, ironically.

They didn't bother explaining Brexit, what makes you think they would do a NI poll any different?

lawred2

Inquitus wrote: »

Good response from the Latvian Abassador to the UK to this ridiculous Telegraph front page prompted by Jeremy Hunt's speech at the Tory conference.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1046510735529058304

https://twitter.com/BaibaBraze/status/1046442294684123139

absolute head in hands at that

A "punchy" speech? Really? Faisal Islam must be easily impressed.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

They didn't bother explaining Brexit, what makes you think they would do a NI poll any different?

'They' wouldn't be conducting a ROI poll. Our political system, for all its faults, is far less binary and, for this and other reasons, the electorate tend to be better informed. The idea that it is up to NI and the British government to decide whether or not there will be a UI is myopic at best.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

absolute head in hands at that

A "punchy" speech? Really? Faisal Islam must be easily impressed.

It's unlikely that Faisal means "punchy" in a good way, lawred.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

'They' wouldn't be conducting a ROI poll. Our political system, for all its faults, is far less binary and, for this and other reasons, the electorate tend to be better informed. The idea that it is up to NI and the British government to decide whether or not there will be a UI is myopic at best.

The suggested NI poll we are discussing is not a border poll, the posturings of the DUP notwithstanding. It's a poll to ask NI voters if the will accept (a) a hard border with the Republic, or (b) increased controls on trade between NI and GB. Neither answer would result in a UI.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's unlikely that Faisal means "punchy" in a good way, lawred.

Well I was wondering because I've heard him speak before on C4 and considered him quite reasoned...

But it's Sky News now

I'm sure Faisal Islam is aware of how tweets are interpreted. And if he wanted to mean 'punchy' in a negative way then he maybe should have accented punchy in some way.

Rhineshark

Peregrinus wrote: »

The suggested NI poll we are discussing is not a border poll, the posturings of the DUP notwithstanding. It's a poll to ask NI voters if the will accept (a) a hard border with the Republic, or (b) increased controls on trade between NI and GB. Neither answer would result in a UI.

I have little doubt that British politicians and the DUP would do their utmost to conflate it as one ("a sea border is goodbye to Britain!") to scare the Unionists into voting though.

It would also scare the nationalists probably but they don't give much of a damn about them.

Peregrinus

Rhineshark wrote: »

I have little doubt that British politicians and the DUP would do their utmost to conflate it as one ("a sea border is goodbye to Britain!") to scare the Unionists into voting though.

The DUP certainly would. Westminster pollies, maybe not so much. If we try to think of a scenario in which such a poll might actually be held, it's that Westminster wants a deal and wants to accept the backstop, and so wants or needs to outflank the DUP. In that scenario they hope the outcome of the poll will favour the open Irish border.

Obviously, that's the polar opposite of Teresa May's current stance. But that just means that, as long as TM is PM, and as long as she maintains this stance, there will be no NI poll on the backstop. In the scenario we are contemplating at least one of these things must have changed.

Enzokk

lawred2 wrote: »

absolute head in hands at that

A "punchy" speech? Really? Faisal Islam must be easily impressed.

lawred2 wrote: »

Well I was wondering because I've heard him speak before on C4 and considered him quite reasoned...

But it's Sky News now

I'm sure Faisal Islam is aware of how tweets are interpreted. And if he wanted to mean 'punchy' in a negative way then he maybe should have accented punchy in some way.

I don't know which way he is leaning but looking at his recent tweets they are all just factual and there is not a lot of personal opinion, at least that I could see. His interpretation of "punchy" is most likely in the way it was delivered more than anything else.

He also retweeted the reply from the Latvian Ambassador and another reply to it so I doubt he is agreeing with the sentiments expressed by Jeremy Hunt.

In other Conservative Conference news, seems like Rees Mogg has had some interesting things to say.

Jacob Rees-Mogg calls African country 'the People's Republic of Jam Jar or something'

Jacob Rees-Mogg referred to an African country as “the people’s republic of jam jar or something”, in a speech to Conservative Party Conference.

The hardline Brexiteer made the remark to a packed crowd at a fringe meeting at the party’s annual gathering in Birmingham.


He was referring to the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, which was the name of Libya under Colonel Gaddafi.

Labour MP and Best for Britain champion Alex Sobel MP said: "This not only shows the same sort of casual racism Boris Johnson has displayed but also a disdain for the rest of the World which would leave us isolated and economically eviscerated if he is allowed his hard Brexit"

I don't know if this was him being ignorant or being racist in a clever way (Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear comes to mind) where a joke has some more meaning or he just tried making a joke and failed. It is a little worrying though that a lot of Conservative politicians finds themselves in trouble with their words. The latest was Boris Johnson and his burka comments so there is history here. But look, Labour antisemitism!

What is interesting his assertion that if there is no deal that they will not have to pay the divorce bill. Once again its a shot at the EU to not trust the UK. There has been enough warning and I hope the EU is vigilant as it is clear the current crop of Tory politicians are not to be trusted at all.

The hardline Brexiteer chief also said there was nothing to fear from crashing out of the EU without a deal, claiming a no-deal Brexit would mean we didn’t have to pay the £39 billion divorce deal.

As for his supporters, this is what solutions they would have to the Irish border.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1046686873891074049

There we have it, we should just join the UK. I am surprised that there hasn't been calls for all previous UK territories to be returned to the Empire to sort out the problem of only being the 5th biggest economy in the world. They could then be 1st again.


And if we can have some giggles (at least I thought so), if I could leave this here.

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1046693200646348800

Hurrache

I did have to look into what Faisal Islam had actually tweeted. I think his use of the word is either misinterpreted or misused as he was one of the better UK journalists on all things Brexit. If anything I'd say he's sways more towards it's a totally stupid idea line of things.

Hurrache

Enzokk wrote: »

As for his supporters, this is what solutions they would have to the Irish border.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1046686873891074049

I wonder was he talking to the same person as Dawn Foster

https://twitter.com/DawnHFoster/status/1046541731062329344

Rhineshark

Of course they think the GFA is a load of rubbish. It's an international peace treaty that is no longer directly convenient to them (it was far more convenient when RoI was helping support NI by opening parts of its economy to it).

It stands between them and Holy Brexit so of course it is now worthless. Other people's peace mean nothing to them.

Leroy42

It seems the Tories are going full blast on the whole "its all the EU's fault" and "why won't they negotiate properly" lines.

TM, in her interview yesterday, repeated a number of times that the EU had not given any reason why Chequers was not acceptable, as far as she was concerned they were just simply being rude.

Raab is at it again this morning, claiming that the EU have failed to match the effort and ambition of the UK (he seemingly does not take any issue with the fact that Davies did the sum total of nothing over 18 months).

Yesterday we had the foreign secretary, let that sink in, the highest diplomat in the UK, claiming that the EU was a prison that held sovereign states against their will. This is said by the foreign secretary of the world once largest global power!

We have the likes of Boris, JRM etc claiming that there is no reason to pay their financial obligations.

TL:DR, basically the Tory party is acting like a party that has no intention of standing by anything it agrees and the EU should be looking to exit this sorry waste of time as a matter or urgency.

seamus

If the Brits decide to tear up the GFA and start getting dragged over the coals for breaking it, they'll blame the EU.

That's the British psyche - we're not wrong, you are. I always thought DeGaulle was being unfair to the British. But every day that passes in this, makes me side more and more with him that the British state is simply incapable of effective international agreements, because they always expect to be the top dog. Compromise and concession are concepts unfamiliar to them.

And when you've always been privileged like this, being asked to compromise feels like you're being attacked.

Unfortunately the British might need a good hard Brexit and economic devastation to break this mindset.

Kermit.de.frog

IDS on tv now saying if the EU continue to insist on ANY backstop for the Irish border there will be no deal.

And goes on to say if Varadkar doesn't rethink "Ireland will be in deep trouble"...

Leroy42

And the interviewer doesn't question IDS, or any of them, on why the UK is backing out of the December Agreement.

That should be the 1st question, followed up by "was TM incorrect to agree to it and thus surely she should has resigned at the time"
The EU, and Ireland, took TM and the UK at their word. They accepted their position, even worked with TM to help massage it.

Boris came out yesterday saying he didn't really understand it at the time, but now (I assume someone has explained it to him) that he knows he hates it.

TM talks about disrespect. How is tearing up a prior agreement, and asking the other side to come up with another one, not disrespect?

We have allowed the UK to continue to pedal this nonsense in the hope that it was just for domestic audience and in reality they didn't believe it. But there is no evidence to believe that is right. The only evidence points to them actually fully believing what they say.

I'm glad its Barnier and not me doing the negotiations, as I would have lost my patience ages ago and told the UK to feck right off. As I said, lucky for everyone I'm not involved!

Seth Brundle

seamus wrote: »

Unfortunately the British might need a good hard Brexit and economic devastation to break this mindset.

I've been of the opinion all along that they need to leave via a hard Brexit to see what they'll be missing - you don't know what you have until it's gone!
I don't believe that they will as arrogant on their return to the EU!

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

IDS on tv now saying if the EU continue to insist on ANY backstop for the Irish border there will be no deal.

And goes on to say if Varadkar doesn't rethink "Ireland will be in deep trouble"...

Charming.

Are these lads at all aware of the immediacy of modern media, the internet and social media?

They are surely aware that as soon as something is said - it is being consumed on the other side of the planet; right?

It's as if they still believe that the only consumers of their bilious diatribes are the like minded within the confines of the conference hall!

Infini

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

IDS on tv now saying if the EU continue to insist on ANY backstop for the Irish border there will be no deal.

And goes on to say if Varadkar doesn't rethink "Ireland will be in deep trouble"...

Oh REALLY now? Hmm lets see now, a backstop in order to prevent a backdoor into the single market via Ireland and keep the GFA intact or a Hard border, possible breakup of the UK, pretty much the entire continent of Europe pissed off at them, economic chaos in THEIR economy and an utter mess purely of the British own making.

This is probably gonna be Ireland to the UK a few years after a UI when these brexiteers keep moaning about the EU "screwing" them...

J Mysterio

Inquitus wrote: »

Good response from the Latvian Ambassador to the UK to this ridiculous Telegraph front page prompted by Jeremy Hunt's speech at the Tory conference.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1046510735529058304

https://twitter.com/BaibaBraze/status/1046442294684123139

Good response indeed. Looks like the UK gov replaced one moronic Foreign Sec with another - do these guys have any cop on at all?

Professor Moriarty

Much of the rhetoric is aimed at the party faithful - Dunkirk and all that - and is more to do with shoring up their vote share and jockeying for position. Boris, Davis Mogg attack a soft Brexit because they can and it's a useful vehicle to motivate useful idiots.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Much of the rhetoric is aimed at the party faithful - Dunkirk and all that - and is more to do with shoring up their vote share and jockeying for position. Boris, Davis Mogg attack a soft Brexit because they can and it's a useful vehicle to motivate useful idiots.

Very true, but the UK don not seem to accept that other leaders should be able to do the same.

Enzokk

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Much of the rhetoric is aimed at the party faithful - Dunkirk and all that - and is more to do with shoring up their vote share and jockeying for position. Boris, Davis Mogg attack a soft Brexit because they can and it's a useful vehicle to motivate useful idiots.

I understand, but what happens when they have to give some ground in the negotiations? Then their rhetoric will be used against them and it will look like they caved to the EU. There is a risk to the words these politicians use and it seems to me that this is more than rhetoric now but ideology in the UK to follow this through.

The problem I see is we expect the outlandish quotes and words to come from the fringe backbenchers. But at the moment it seems that they are coming more and more from Theresa May and her cabinet as well. That is worrying and they will walk into a hard Brexit for no other reason than incompetence.

johnnyskeleton

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

IDS on tv now saying if the EU continue to insist on ANY backstop for the Irish border there will be no deal.

And goes on to say if Varadkar doesn't rethink "Ireland will be in deep trouble"...

I have largely tuned out of the Brexit negotiations of late but I find this very hard to understand.

The backstop is a contingency plan in the event that the other deal isn't agreed. IDS is saying that trying to put contingency plans in place means that they won't negotiate on the deal at all. Is this pure bravado? Because logically refusing to do a deal because there is a contingency in place in the event that it doesn't work requires that both sides are forced to make a deal or face the worst possible consequences

Leroy42

Look at TM's interview on Marr yesterday. Marr put the very logical point to TM that just as she was calling on the EU to bend, that she would have to bend as well. Was she prepared to do that.

And she steadfastly refused to accept it. 6 months to go and they are still afraid to even tell the truth to the public. They keep going on about the will of the people, whilst at the same time making sure they never actually tell the truth to the public.

Many seem to be of the view that the UK will move towards a deal, but the December Agreement should show that regardless of any last minute shift that might be done, it will last only as long as it takes for the news to get back to the UK, whereby the likes of Boris, JRM and Davies will decry to climb down and demand TM steps down.

So it really doesn't matter what is agreed, TM does not have the authority to deliver anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

I understand, but what happens when they have to give some ground in the negotiations? Then their rhetoric will be used against them and it will look like they caved to the EU. There is a risk to the words these politicians use and it seems to me that this is more than rhetoric now but ideology in the UK to follow this through.

The problem I see is we expect the outlandish quotes and words to come from the fringe backbenchers. But at the moment it seems that they are coming more and more from Theresa May and her cabinet as well. That is worrying and they will walk into a hard Brexit for no other reason than incompetence.

There is that danger. However, the most shrill voices - Johnson, Hunt, Davis, Mogg etc. - do not represent a majority of people. They can indulge in craw-thumping rhetoric because they don't need to offer a viable alternative. The Tory press (and the conference) loves their rhetoric so they get far more visibility than they deserve. Their Little Englander ideology may blind them to the looming cliff edge but maybe there are still enough sane politicians inside and outside the Tory party to prevent a hard Brexit.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Much of the rhetoric is aimed at the party faithful - Dunkirk and all that - and is more to do with shoring up their vote share and jockeying for position. Boris, Davis Mogg attack a soft Brexit because they can and it's a useful vehicle to motivate useful idiots.

This just doesnt make it ok. They lied right the way through the referendum and Brexit process and look where that has got us.

Its time to stand up to Tory bullshìt, be it intended for a domestic audience or otherwise. The lies and mistruths poison the whole process and do not make a deal more likely.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

This just doesnt make it ok. They lied right the way through the referendum and Brexit process and look where that has got us.

Its time to stand up to Tory bullshìt, be it intended for a domestic audience or otherwise. The lies and mistruths poison the whole process and do not make a deal more likely.

No it's not okay. However, as an Irish citizen, all I can do is look on in amazement and offer my opinion here. Similarly, the way forward for Ireland and the EU is to maintain a calm and clear perspective. Reacting to ideologues spouting pompous rubbish isn't going to help. In fact, 'outsiders' offering counterarguments to their rubbish will feed their Little Englander lies. Better to see the rhetoric for what it is and give it the appropriate credence while continuing to engage with Britain with civil reality