Brexit discussion thread IV

Kermit.de.frog

lol! Looks like the ERG want to screw the DUP.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do2mWBXX4AA0h9i.jpg:large

EU officials in British ports...

Good loser

charlie14 wrote: »

You may have missed that I mentioned 7 years ago.

Michael Noonan the then FG finance minister has stated that he was on his way to the Dail on March 31st. 2011 to announce his proposal to burn bank bondholders. Something that would have reduced that taxpayer hock, (for Anglo alone, 6 Billion euro) but had to drop that proposal upon receiving a call from Jean-Claude Trichet telling him if he even dreamt of doing soo "a bomb would go off in Dublin"

Yes Trichet insisted Ireland stick to it's promises.

Kermit.de.frog

DUP are getting screwed according to the Sunday Telegraph. ERG siding with EU because they desperately want Canada plus and that is more important to them.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

DUP are getting screwed according to the Sunday Telegraph. ERG siding with EU because they desperately want Canada plus and that is more important to them.

It was always going to happen imo. Oh to be inside DUP HQ in the while!

Kermit.de.frog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was always going to happen imo. Oh to be inside DUP HQ in the while!

I hope i'm not misreading it but that seems to me like a wholesale customs or regulatory border in the Irish sea.

Could be wrong but that's how I interpret it.

Good loser

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, no Sinn Féin MP has sat in Westminster for over 100 years. This is nothing new. It's not for Sinn Féin to sacrifice their political principles to solve a problem created by Tory Little Englanders.

Ireland's population is about to suffer severe financial hardship because of Brexit, to the extent of 8% contraction in the south and twice that in the north. Sinn Fein are fully aware of this.


It is unpatriotic, unethical and immoral not to use whatever means are at their disposal to avert this threat. Turning up at Westminster, even if only to vote on Brexit issues, would be the most useful thing they ever did.
Not to do so is criminally negligent.


Fat lot of thanks they will get from the Brexiteers.

kuro68k

I wonder if the brexiteers like Boris are going to just accept a bad deal and then blame it all on May, forcing her out and trying to claim that their hands are tied but they are making the best of it.

Anthracite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

It appears the UK public would be perfectly happy with Brexit In Name Only:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-negotiations-no-deal-full-access-single-market-polling-theresa-may-a8571846.html

The fact is that that the average Briton doesn't know what most of these things mean, and have no idea of their implications. I speak as someone who frequents lots of UK-based forums and have tried to engage them in discussion on these things. They generally don't have a clue.

badtoro

Would work out well for little englanders, let May take the blame, get some kind of Brexit, increase chance of ditching ever troublesome £££ sinkhole.

What's not to like for a mainlander?

charlie14

Good loser wrote: »

Yes Trichet insisted Ireland stick to it's promises.

I may have missed it, but I cannot recall Ireland making any commitment not to burn bondholders prior to Trichet`s call to Michael Noonan 31st. March 2011 ?
In fact until this day, neither Trichet or his successor Mario Draghi have given an explanation for threatening Noonan that "a bomb would go off in Dublin", with Draghi even refusing to answer questions at the banking inquiry afaik.

FrancieBrady

Good loser wrote: »

Ireland's population is about to suffer severe financial hardship because of Brexit, to the extent of 8% contraction in the south and twice that in the north. Sinn Fein are fully aware of this.


It is unpatriotic, unethical and immoral not to use whatever means are at their disposal to avert this threat. Turning up at Westminster, even if only to vote on Brexit issues, would be the most useful thing they ever did.
Not to do so is criminally negligent.


Fat lot of thanks they will get from the Brexiteers.

Any political party will look at the implications of what they do. The UK is in a process of breaking up, even before Brexit the signs were not good.
Why would an abstentionist party get involved in that?
Their political survival is what comes first and getting rid of a 100 year old principle (to not get involved in the running of other country's) for a short term gain would cause serious problems for them.

They have imo forced the Irish government to lead on this, and as consequence have made northern Irish people look to Dublin for the lead. That is a smart move in terms of the long term goal.

Brexit was going to happen anyway regardless of a win or two in parliament facilitated by SF, if that would have even happened.

First Up

charlie14 wrote:

Michael Noonan the then FG finance minister has stated that he was on his way to the Dail on March 31st. 2011 to announce his proposal to burn bank bondholders. Something that would have reduced that taxpayer hock, (for Anglo alone, 6 Billion euro) but had to drop that proposal upon receiving a call from Jean-Claude Trichet telling him if he even dreamt of doing soo "a bomb would go off in Dublin"

And a bloody good job he did. The consequences of that bomb would have been with us for years to come.

BonnieSituation

judeboy101 wrote: »

Tories and dup and Sylva herman and at least 3 labour brexiteers still have a majority even with SF voting, and Tory whip works better than labour one.

Since when is Sylvia Hermon a Brexiter?

Nody

kuro68k wrote: »

I wonder if the brexiteers like Boris are going to just accept a bad deal and then blame it all on May, forcing her out and trying to claim that their hands are tied but they are making the best of it.

That's been my prediction for a while now; you'd be a moron to take responsibility for brexit (any flavour is worse than now basically) but to ride in as a shiny knight on white armor as the person "who called out how bad the deal was" is an excellent platform to take over on. Things will improve by default as companies get used to the new processes etc. and hence you can claim that as proof of your competence (economy is growing again!) for the 2020 election (can't call it earlier "as you need to stabilize the economy").

BonnieSituation

Good loser wrote: »

Ireland's population is about to suffer severe financial hardship because of Brexit, to the extent of 8% contraction in the south and twice that in the north. Sinn Fein are fully aware of this.


It is unpatriotic, unethical and immoral not to use whatever means are at their disposal to avert this threat. Turning up at Westminster, even if only to vote on Brexit issues, would be the most useful thing they ever did.
Not to do so is criminally negligent.


Fat lot of thanks they will get from the Brexiteers.

How has this nonsense reared its head again?

On no level would SF breaking their long held abstentionist policy have made a difference and it would have gone against the wishes of their constituents who vote for them knowing they won't take their seats.

Unpatriotic? You certainly aren't versed in the nuances of Irish nationalism I'll give you that.

Kermit.de.frog

charlie14 wrote: »

I may have missed it, but I cannot recall Ireland making any commitment not to burn bondholders prior to Trichet`s call to Michael Noonan 31st. March 2011 ?
In fact until this day, neither Trichet or his successor Mario Draghi have given an explanation for threatening Noonan that "a bomb would go off in Dublin", with Draghi even refusing to answer questions at the banking inquiry afaik.

You do understand the consequences of "burning bondholders" for the country, right?

Has this not been done to death?

Wrong thread anyway.

Nate--IRL--

charlie14 wrote: »

I may have missed it, but I cannot recall Ireland making any commitment not to burn bondholders prior to Trichet`s call to Michael Noonan 31st. March 2011 ?

You missed the Bank guarantee specifically ensuring the bondholders weren't on the hook made by Fianna Fail?

Nate

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any political party will look at the implications of what they do. The UK is in a process of breaking up, even before Brexit the signs were not good.
Why would an abstentionist party get involved in that?
Their political survival is what comes first and getting rid of a 100 year old principle (to not get involved in the running of other country's) for a short term gain would cause serious problems for them.

They have imo forced the Irish government to lead on this, and as consequence have made northern Irish people look to Dublin for the lead. That is a smart move in terms of the long term goal.

Brexit was going to happen anyway regardless of a win or two in parliament facilitated by SF, if that would have even happened.

It is more than a bit of a stretch to say that SF are the reason the Irish government have taken the line that they have on Brexit.

Unless you are referring to the SF friends that haven't gone away

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

DUP are getting screwed according to the Sunday Telegraph. ERG siding with EU because they desperately want Canada plus and that is more important to them.

As if Irish people (blue or green) really reckoned at all where Tories were concerned

You'd have to feel for anyone naive enough to think so

FrancieBrady

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It is more than a bit of a stretch to say that SF are the reason the Irish government have taken the line that they have on Brexit.

Unless you are referring to the SF friends that haven't gone away

I didn't say they were the reason, I said they forced them.

By stepping back and not taking the lead (as would have been expected) they left the way open for the government (petrified of being seen to be in alliance with the shinners) to do what they have so often failed to do - speak up for those who identify as Irish and for those who live along the border.
What would have happened if SF led in this would be patronising 'go easy' talk from Leo and Co. while trying to achieve the same thing behind closed doors.
They made FG be honest, so to speak.

I have no idea whether that was a thought out strategy or not but it sure has worked in terms of how nationalists in the north see Dublin now.

Rain Ascending

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

lol! Looks like the ERG want to screw the DUP.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Do2mWBXX4AA0h9i.jpg:large

EU officials in British ports...

Hmm, so Paris is worth a mass after all.

Combine that move by the ERG closer to Canada+ plus NI backstop, with plans for senior Tories to try to convince some Labour MPs to either vote for or abstain on a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May then one can see a route through the House of Commons:

• DUP voting against
• Most of the ERG voting for
• Some 10+ Labour MPs voting for
• A few more Labour MPs abstaining

All we need is for the Commission to rename "Canada+ plus NI backstop" as "Chequers Lite" or at least allow Theresa to do so, and bobs your uncle, we're in business!

ArmaniJeanss

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Combine that move by the ERG closer to Canada+ plus NI backstop, with plans for senior Tories to try to convince some Labour MPs to either vote for or abstain on a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May then one can see a route through the House of Commons:

This seems flawed -
TMay could potentially get some Labour Brexiteers to vote with the government, or some Labour Remainers to abstain, but it seems impossible to get both things to happen at the same time which the plan relies on.
The Remainers are generally Keir Starmer supporters, and the Brexiteers are close to the Corbyn side. But Corbyn and Starmer seem cordial enough to prevent such an obvious lose/lose ploy happening.

charlie14

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

You missed the Bank guarantee specifically ensuring the bondholders weren't on the hook made by Fianna Fail?

Nate

Whereas you appear to have missed, or purposely ignored, that there was no commitment from anyone, Fianna Fail or otherwise, to bondholders prior to Jean-Claude Trichet putting a gun to Michael Noonan`s head on the 31st. March 2011 with the threat that if he did as he intended too as regards unsecured bondholders then "a bomb would go off in Dublin".

charlie14

First Up wrote: »

And a bloody good job he did. The consequences of that bomb would have been with us for years to come.

How so if you consider the establishment of the European Stability Mechanism as regards sovereign debt by the then 17 euro member states in 2012 ?


A stability mechanism that would alleviate the burden of debt on taxpayers of banking debt that Enda Kenny thought was a game change, before he was quickly slapped down and told that we could not retrospectively avail off it

charlie14

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You do understand the consequences of "burning bondholders" for the country, right?
.

If I don`t, then I am not alone.


Ajai Chopra of the International Monetary Fund, the only non EU member of the three legged stool of the Troika, said that Ireland could have saved billions if it had been allowed to do so.

Enzokk

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Hmm, so Paris is worth a mass after all.

Combine that move by the ERG closer to Canada+ plus NI backstop, with plans for senior Tories to try to convince some Labour MPs to either vote for or abstain on a Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May then one can see a route through the House of Commons:

• DUP voting against
• Most of the ERG voting for
• Some 10+ Labour MPs voting for
• A few more Labour MPs abstaining

All we need is for the Commission to rename "Canada+ plus NI backstop" as "Chequers Lite" or at least allow Theresa to do so, and bobs your uncle, we're in business!

I think this is the most likely route through parliament because the 10 votes from the DUP is easier to overcome than the 60 or so of the ERG, but if Theresa May goes this way she sets herself up for a big fall in an important non-Brexit vote from the DUP. She still does depend on their support on all other matters than Brexit. So the next budget vote may be in doubt if she burns them on the border.

Also, how does this sit with her speech about keeping the UK together? If her partner in government from the very part you are negotiating about is telling you this will tear your country apart, do you still go ahead with it?

Econ__

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This seems flawed -
TMay could potentially get some Labour Brexiteers to vote with the government, or some Labour Remainers to abstain, but it seems impossible to get both things to happen at the same time which the plan relies on.
The Remainers are generally Keir Starmer supporters, and the Brexiteers are close to the Corbyn side. But Corbyn and Starmer seem cordial enough to prevent such an obvious lose/lose ploy happening.

It's far from flawed.


Labour Brexiters will vote for a deal that meets their aims (a Canada FTA).

Plenty of Labour Remainers could be frightened with prospect of no deal if they vote it down.

A bad deal is better than no deal.

Alan_P

charlie14 wrote: »

If I don`t, then I am not alone.


Ajai Chopra of the International Monetary Fund, the only non EU member of the three legged stool of the Troika, said that Ireland could have saved billions if it had been allowed to do so.

Of course we could have. We couldn't because of Fianna Fail stupidity, arrogance and incompetence. Fianna Fail made bond holder debt national debt :- this cannot be repeated enough.


It was the third time they'd impoverished the country, after the Economic War of the 30s, and the 77 manifesto. If FF are truly patriotic, they might perhaps consider they're not actually good at governing, and disband ?

Leonard Hofstadter

A Canada deal with a backstop for NI is surely a win win for everyone.

It means it will be a Hard Brexit so for all intents and purposes the Brexiters get what they want.

It's also far inferior to current deal with the EU (and let's not forget, free trade deals only cover goods - which is 20% of the UK economy) but it keeps all the good bits from the point of view of EU countries who do a lot of trade with the UK (no tariffs on the food we sell to the UK or on the cars the Germans sell to them either) but the UK won't have passporting or any of the other benefits of the single market and the EU won't have compromised the single market so it's still the same deal other third countries get with the EU so it's a win for the EU as well.

Or am I missing something?

Enzokk

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

A Canada deal with a backstop for NI is surely a win win for everyone.

It means it will be a Hard Brexit so for all intents and purposes the Brexiters get what they want.

It's also far inferior to current deal with the EU (and let's not forget, free trade deals only cover goods - which is 20% of the UK economy) but it keeps all the good bits from the point of view of EU countries who do a lot of trade with the UK (no tariffs on the food we sell to the UK or on the cars the Germans sell to them either) but the UK won't have passporting or any of the other benefits of the single market and the EU won't have compromised the single market so it's still the same deal other third countries get with the EU so it's a win for the EU as well.

Or am I missing something?

Almost everyone, you forgot the DUP. In any other time they would not even be thought of, but not this parliament.