Brexit discussion thread IV

trellheim

For reference : again

Tories : 315
Labour : 257
SNP : 35
Lib Dem 12
DUP 10
Independent 8
SF : 7
Plaid 4
Green 1
Speaker 1

Total 650

(Tories+DUP) 325 (all bar SF and the speaker ) 317

DUP Abstaining on vote of no confidence 315 to 317 so got lose.

Although doesnt count folks like Kate Hoey or ERG

See https://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/

What SF in my view need to do is to indicate the possibility of taking the seats, this would cause conniptions on excel spreadsheets in No. 12 downing st. They don't have to actually do so.

I do see the logic in sitting back and watching the DUP snake biting its own tail but there's a point at which a little bit more is required.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, they see participation in British institutions which govern in Ireland as an acceptance or endorsement of the role of those institutions

Well, apart from the little detail that after the GFA they took seats, jobs and salaries from the Brits to help administer the 6-county rump colonialist illegitimate imperial statelet in the North.

Zubeneschamali

Working class heroes wrote: »

The Late Late Show ... Nigel Farage.

RTé, you jackasses, have you not learned from the example of the BBC and their stream of UKIP spokespeople over the years?

Yes, inviting these liars onstage will get you some clicks and eyeballs, but you legitimize their extreme views this way.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, apart from the little detail that after the GFA they took seats, jobs and salaries from the Brits to help administer the 6-county rump colonialist illegitimate imperial statelet in the North.

But the government of Northern Ireland is, by definition, an Irish institution, elected by Irish people, accountable to Irish people. Participating in them does not violate the principle that Ireland should be governed by the Irish.

The Westminster institutions are a different kettle of fish altogether.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the government of Northern Ireland is, by definition, an Irish institution, elected by Irish people, accountable to Irish people.

Yeah, and the Vichy government was French.

Enzokk

jm08 wrote: »

Sinn Fein MPs don't take a salary.

They do not get a salary but they do have allowances they claim.

Capt'n Midnight

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't think SF should take their seats but their 7 votes would have kept the UK in the Customs Union as that vote was lost by a margin of 5. That would have been a game-changing moment.

IIRC that vote was so critical that half of the largest English anti-Brexit party didn't even bother showing up.

MrMusician18

jm08 wrote: »

Sinn Fein MPs don't take a salary.

Pretty sure they do, as well as expenses and offices in Westminster.

Capt'n Midnight

Infini wrote: »

Difference though is Sturgeon is at least representing the majority will of Scotland. The DUP are only interested in representing the narrow minded view of a MINORITY of NI and are only after their own self interests and have no interest in the national interest even if it triggers a UK breakup.

23.4% of the electorate voted for the DUP , that's nearly a quarter.

In the Assembly where PR means you don't necessarily have to vote for the enemy of your enemy only 18% of the electorate voted for them.

kuro68k

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

23.4% of the electorate voted for the DUP , that's nearly a quarter.

To put it in perspective that's about 200k people in NI controlling the fate of whole UK.

That''s bexit in a nutshell. Small groups of extremists dictating the future of the UK through a broken electoral system.

MrMusician18

kuro68k wrote: »

To put it in perspective that's about 200k people in NI controlling the fate of whole UK.

That''s bexit in a nutshell. Small groups of extremists dictating the future of the UK through a broken electoral system.

Is that not a stretch though? Did not the Tory manifesto at the last election have a no CU and SM policy?

An Ciarraioch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Working class heroes wrote: »

The Late Late Show ... Nigel Farage.

RTé, you jackasses, have you not learned from the example of the BBC and their stream of UKIP spokespeople over the years?

Yes, inviting these liars onstage will get you some clicks and eyeballs, but you legitimize their extreme views this way.

I would say though that Hermann Kelly was on the Tonight Show three times recently, and both the hosts and the panellists were well able for him.

kuro68k

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Is that not a stretch though? Did not the Tory manifesto at the last election have a no CU and SM policy?

Yes, and they lost.

We have gone from 17M people voting on promises to stay in the CU and SM, dictating the future to 65M. Those promises were reneged on almost immediately after the vote. Not to mention the lies. Oh, the lies.

Then a disastrous election, resulting in 10 DUP MPs getting a veto and a big say in the deal.

Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament, a much more representative institution with a much greater constituency, is completely excluded.

trellheim

Tonights Question Time from Scotland (2245 BBC1)


Ross Thomson MP ( Scot Con MP ) ,
Kezia Dugdale MSP (LAB) ,
Mike Russell MSP (SNP) ,
Val McDermid (writer ) and
Fraser Nelson ( Editor of the Spectator) .

ArmaniJeanss

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

I would say though that Hermann Kelly was on the Tonight Show three times recently, and both the hosts and the panellists were well able for him.

Presumably the Tonight Show hosts were political interviewers, used to asking the key questions, aware of the intricacies of the issues to a Peregrinus standard and capable of pointing out bull.
Tubridy (whatever his flaws/merits) can't really be expected to fulful that role, no more than a great like Wogan or Parkinson could be expected to grill Thatcher.

It will probably end up with Campbell being effectively the interviewer for Farage.

LuckyLloyd

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They don't want to participate in British politicss yet are happy to stand in British elections and take the British MPs salary and expenses!
Talk about having your cake and eating it.

One could also say that they don't want to be in government in the UK. They want the benefits without the responsibilities of office.
Same as in NI.
And in the RoI.

The great thing about how Ireland has dealt with Brexit thus far is that - even in the context of a minority government - opposition parties have largely rowed in behind the Govenment's stance on the issue. That unified purpose may yet payoff in a good conclusion from an Irish perspective, as currently proposed. In that context, SF's objectives are being met. As such, if there was ever a time to abandon their abstentionist stance it is certainly not now. Nor is the time to compromise further on points of principle so that the DUP can be let off the hook in Stormont.

(and that leaves aside the inaccuracies in your post well addressed by others)

Of course, even at times of such great national import you'll have the true party political die hards who can't help themselves - whether it be an opportunity to bash SF or Corbyn or FG or whatever. This isn't another Politics Cafe thread bashing SF nor should it become one. The matter at hand is far more important.

demfad

We know that the backers of Trump and Trump himself are vehement climate change deniers. The regime has installed climate deniers in all key environmental posts. Federal employees were encouraged to rat out climate 'believers' in the EPA during the transition. Trump pulled out of the Paris accord. Front and centre are individuals linked to well known funders of climate science denial, the Kochs, the Mercers, and the Heritage Foundation. The Mercers are Trump's main Backers and Steve Bannon is their man.

Let's look at Brexit: All operating out of the same London address 55 Tufton Street: Campaigns Vote Leave, Leave.EU AND Climate denial groups-- The Global Warming Policy Foundation, The Atlantic Bridge, Institute of Economic Affairs. 55 Tufton Street is Brexiteer central and is the climate denial centre of the UK.

The Heritage foundation is the main link cross Atlantic. After Liam Fox got appointed Minister for Trade within a week he met with 12 members of Heritage on Free Trade. His former Atlantic Bridge colleage (reason Fox was disgraced) Coffey is now with Heritage. Heritage organises 'Free Trade' seminars at the Conservative conference and all over the US.

Brexit UK ministers who deny/sceptical of climate change
Theresa May, Liam Fox, David Davis, Boris Johnson, Andrea Leadsom.
After a landmark ruling in The Netherlands Gove refuses to attend world conference for Environment ministers this week.

Believing in 'Free Trade' seems to be synonymous with denying climate change almost without exception.
The Bruges Group, The Legatum Institute, Economists for Free Trade, Institute for Economic Affairs, Cobden Centre ,Initiative for Free Trade
New Direction – The Foundation for European Reform, TaxPayers’ Alliance, Cambridge Analytica ,AggregateIQ ,Palantir
Breitbart, The Murdoch Empire , The Daily Mail, The Barclay Brothers
, BrexitCentral.

All involved in Brexit (and most with Trump) all sceptics or outright deniers.
Robert Mercer was paid almost half of Official Vote Leave monies, also paid be BeLeave (illegally), Veterans for Leave, and the DUP. He fully funds the climate denying 'scientist Arther Robinson in the US' and helps get his 'papers' published.

What is going on here? If we clear the mist from our eyes we can see.

This week a bombshell report was released on climate change stating that if the current trajectory continues in 12 years we will reach the threshold where the temperature will inevitably jump 5-6 degrees, the water levels rise by 60m with the breakdown of human civilisations and planet ecosystems as we know them. Worse than a global nuclear war probably. http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

This was generally not front page news due mainly to the 100s of billions put into interference, disinformation and denial around climate change by the groups above. Again why? Why is it so important?

We should know by now what an green economic model to avert the coming catastrophe should look like but we generally dont, I can only generalise:

Fossil fuels must stay in the ground.
Global GDP must be reduced drastically. That means interest paying loans to support economies are out, economies can no longer grow by 2% or whetevr annually.
That's the end of the global Finance industry as we know it.
Global sharing of essential resources.
Meat and dairy removed from food chains.
Global coordination in this new world (Big Green EUs).

In the world of existential climate change the Overton window is an Overton football. It doesnt shift slightly left or right: It gets kicked onto a different pitch.
The billionaire fossil fuel guys, 'Free Trade' Capitalists, Global Finance billionaires, Money launderers, Businessmen criminals and criminal businessmen: they cannot follow us into this new world. Their world melts.
When the average joe and Jill Soap truly grasp global warming, when lazy journalists decide to truly take a position instead of half believing and doing nothing and when Governments act..then the world of these guys is gone. They melt much like the wicked witch of the West.

Unless they can capture democracy, grab the overton football and keep it. Make their billions while the future world burns. Peter Thiel himself said that Capitalism and democracy are no longer compatible. He believes this.

The truth is that the great existential struggle is between a climate change acceptance world and a climate change denial world. This is the war being waged. The realise and understand they are in this war, Bastards though they may be.

The goal is to keep us in the dark. They are in a race to capture our democracy, information, and societies so their world continues while the planet perishes as regards civilisations. And they have contingencies for this too.

Everyone feels helpless these days. How can we understand the world, why do I feel powerless.

You have the power. Take a position on climate change. Truly understand it. Teach your kids, colleagues. If we all become climate change aware and/or active. The bad stuff all goes away. It's not post-truth as these guys want us to believe.
We just need to look closer to find it.

Zubeneschamali

A good speech here from Ivan Rogers delivered at Cambridge on Brexit as a Revolution.

OK, the speech is good on the UK side. He says at the start that he will also criticise the "ancien regime" in the EU, but in fact his criticisms add up to the EU being too polite and not heavily armed enough for the new normal in the world of Trump and Putin.

It is a bit sad to see this guy, Permanent Representative of the the UK to the EU from 2013 to 2017, say that the EUs side of the negotiations has been exactly as he predicted, and for it to be so clear that no-one in Westminster was listening.

They're not listening still.

Kermit.de.frog

Hate to contaminate the forum with a Daily Mail article but it appears from this the deal is all but done and now May is getting her cabinet onside.

NI would remain in the single market.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6264033/PM-fights-push-Irish-border-concessions-past-Brexit-War-Cabinet.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hate to contaminate the forum with a Daily Mail article but it appears from this the deal is all but done and now May is getting her cabinet onside.

NI would remain in the single market.

Per the article, the opposition to her plan comes from the DUP, who want no Irish Sea border, and Brexiteers who want to tear up the backstop agreement and go pure Canada.

Of course, the EU would simply say a flat No to a Canada-no-backstop deal, and the Brexiteers would crash out with no deal in March. I don't think they have the nerve for that.

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

A good speech here from Ivan Rogers delivered at Cambridge on Brexit as a Revolution.

Thanks for posting that. I haven't read the full thing yet, but the opening lines are funny:

Ivan Rogers wrote:

It’s a great honour to have been invited to give this lecture.

Catherine kindly asked me which ABBA song I would want to accompany my dance to the platform.

“Waterloo” would be the obvious choice, I think.

Leroy42

So a customs union would mean no tariffs, but would mean regulatory checks across the UK. Keeping NI within the SM means no regulatory checks between NI and ROI. But there would have to be checks between NI and the UK?

Let me ask some quick questions? What is the benefit to the EU of allowing the UK to stay within the CU? Its just a FTA or is it something else?
On what basis are the controls of products undertaken under a CU? Surely the Uk can't start using lead paint or whatever?
What happens with services under this CU but not SM plan?
Is the UK against the SM because it brings with it the requirements of FoM?

I got myself totally confused at this point.

seamus

Not so subtle agenda in the Daily Mail. They don't really want to tear down May, as the Mail loves their Thatcherite politicians, but at the same time they aren't permitted to be in any way positive about a deal that doesn't give the UK everything.

So instead, they're going with the line that the government is on the verge of collapse and it's all up for grabs. A collapse would mean the virtual certainty of a hard exit, so it suits the Mail to sow the seed.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Let me ask some quick questions?

But there would have to be checks between NI and the UK?

Yes, so the DUP are anti.

What is the benefit to the EU of allowing the UK to stay within the CU?

Firstly, the UK agree a withdrawal agreement and there is an orderly transition to a known state instead of chaos. Longer term, less trade friction than having them leave the CU means more trade, more money for everyone, and the UK is prevented from using a race-to-the-bottom and FTA with other nations to undercut the EU.

Its just a FTA or is it something else?

It is more - if the UK are in the CU they apply the EU external tariffs, and cannot do free trade deals on their own.

On what basis are the controls of products undertaken under a CU? Surely the Uk can't start using lead paint or whatever?

The CU is not a single market, it does not allow UK goods into the SM without inspection. It just allows goods both ways without tariffs.

What happens with services under this CU but not SM plan?

The UK service industry gets trashed.

Is the UK against the SM because it brings with it the requirements of FoM?

Yes, that and many Brexiteers fantasize about the wonderful deals they will do with Botswana after they leave the SM.

BonnieSituation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

People should not be naive to think that the minute SF steps into Westminster to participate in parliamentary votes, that all the other MPs will vote the same way they would have if SF were not there. There is more liklihood of plenty more MPs voting against anything SF vote for than the number of votes SF bring to the table. With this in mind it is a total irrelevance to include SF in any calculation

This is exactly what I have said in all the posts I've made on the matter lver the last couple of months. It's beyond naive to think otherwise. In fact it rather dilutes any status that the poster may have had when they start to make the point.

bob mcbob

trellheim wrote: »

Tonights Question Time from Scotland (2245 BBC1)


Ross Thomson MP ( Scot Con MP ) ,
Kezia Dugdale MSP (LAB) ,
Mike Russell MSP (SNP) ,
Val McDermid (writer ) and
Fraser Nelson ( Editor of the Spectator) .

I might watch just to see Ross Thomson - the BoJo of the Scot Con party.

He branded all other Scottish Tories as a***holes because they were campaigning against Boris.

Memorably he also stated he is not worried about food and drug shortages after hard Brexit. What worried him was that if it was soft Brexit he would not be able to buy a vacuum cleaner with a motor greater than 900W.

A Dub in Glasgo

From a Brexit & Scottish independence point of view (which will feature tonight)

Ross Thomson - Leave / No
Kezia Dugdale - Remain / No
Mike Russell - Remain / Yes
Val McDermid - Remain / Yes
Fraser Nelson - Leave / No

MrMusician18

seamus wrote: »

Not so subtle agenda in the Daily Mail. They don't really want to tear down May, as the Mail loves their Thatcherite politicians, but at the same time they aren't permitted to be in any way positive about a deal that doesn't give the UK everything.

So instead, they're going with the line that the government is on the verge of collapse and it's all up for grabs. A collapse would mean the virtual certainty of a hard exit, so it suits the Mail to sow the seed.

Dacre is not in charge of the mail anymore. A remainer is now, strangely enough.

MrMusician18

kuro68k wrote: »

Yes, and they lost.

We have gone from 17M people voting on promises to stay in the CU and SM, dictating the future to 65M. Those promises were reneged on almost immediately after the vote. Not to mention the lies. Oh, the lies.

Then a disastrous election, resulting in 10 DUP MPs getting a veto and a big say in the deal.

Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament, a much more representative institution with a much greater constituency, is completely excluded.

That's being selective. Even though they returned fewer seats did they not grab the largest vote ever, 42-43% of votes cast?

Econ__

seamus wrote: »

Not so subtle agenda in the Daily Mail. They don't really want to tear down May, as the Mail loves their Thatcherite politicians, but at the same time they aren't permitted to be in any way positive about a deal that doesn't give the UK everything.

So instead, they're going with the line that the government is on the verge of collapse and it's all up for grabs. A collapse would mean the virtual certainty of a hard exit, so it suits the Mail to sow the seed.

Two points here -

1) The government collapsing wouldn't necessarily lead to a hard exit, IMO it'd likely reduce the possibility of a hard exit (Article 50 would almost certainly be extended prior to any election and no party is going to run on a manifesto of no deal)


2) The Daily Mail changed editor a few weeks ago. The toxic Paul Dacre reign is over and the moderate, remain-backing Geordie Greig is in place (he was editor at the Mail's sister paper - the Mail on Sunday). Any shift in the papers tone should be seen through that prism - they have genuinely toned down the 'Enemies of the People' stuff and are not covertly sowing the seeds of a hard exit.