Brexit discussion thread IV

BonnieSituation

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Did I imagine seeing a quote about the DUP having said they have "red blood lines" or something to that effect ?

Sweet Jaysus these people are the majority in Northern Ireland.

Oh youre counting seats. And there's me thinking you we're doing a whole sectarian head count.

BonnieSituation

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

At some stage the green side is going to have more seats and very possibly will be as tone deaf to the unionists as the dup are now to soft Brexit supporters

And at what stage in the history of Irish nationalism has it been shown to be tone deaf?

Nationalism has been always aware that its strength lies in consensus.

Your post merely shows that you are quite frankly.

Anthracite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They're not listening still.

Perhaps they never will?

Rhineshark

Anthracite wrote: »

Perhaps they never will?

Starry starry night
Paint your Brexit blue, red and white...

Mr.Nice Guy

According to Sky's Faisal Islam, the DUP's Brexit spokesperson Sammy Wilson has been talking up the idea of voting against elements of the UK Budget which would ideally for them see the Tories getting a different leader to carry out Brexit. As I saw someone astutely point out, the DUP kicked up a massive stink when Sinn Fein asked Arlene Foster to step aside temporarily for the RHI inquiry on the basis that they wouldn't have another party dictate to them who their leader should be. Now they see fit to do precisely that. Such hypocrites.

Spook_ie

J Mysterio wrote: »

She did the Ulster Covenant, which isnt a surprise.

It just seems very regressive and backward to be tweeting about the IRA every other day. Move on FFS.

In the interest of balanced debate, I wonder if the next time someone brings up 800 years of.... You'll ask them to move on?

Infini

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

According to Sky's Faisal Islam, the DUP's Brexit spokesperson Sammy Wilson has been talking up the idea of voting against elements of the UK Budget which would ideally for them see the Tories getting a different leader to carry out Brexit. As I saw someone astutely point out, the DUP kicked up a massive stink when Sinn Fein asked Arlene Foster to step aside temporarily for the RHI inquiry on the basis that they wouldn't have another party dictate to them who their leader should be. Now they see fit to do precisely that. Such hypocrites.

What do you expect from them to be honest. Hypocracy and corruption reeks from them, as bad as Sinn Fein can be these reek of corruption and self interest they dont care about the greater good only their own skewed ideoligical BS. Thing is the way they act is going to bite them sooner or later it always happens to these kinds of people.

Water John

May must be apopletic at hearing the DUP are seeking to have her replaced. By any standard that's way out of line. They are demanding that another Political Party change their leader and the oaf Sammy Wilson left it out of the bag.
One would think the UK Press, on all sides, would savage them.

trellheim

The DUP /tory deal is not between the leaders - it is between the whips , if you look Jeffrey Donaldson and Gavin Williamson are the signatories

see
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/tory-dup-deal-agreement-full/

Angry bird

The FT are merely reporting on the latest negotiations between the UK and itself. Of course there is no such agreement in sight. The EU will likely keep the door ajar but report at the summit next Wednesday that there is no current basis for a further summit in November given the lack of firm details from the UK and that the focus is switching to preparations for a no deal. Like Salzburg, this focuses the attention right back to the UK. Further infighting is likely and on cue the DUP are lining themselves up as the expendables.

blanch152

BonnieSituation wrote: »

And at what stage in the history of Irish nationalism has it been shown to be tone deaf?

Nationalism has been always aware that its strength lies in consensus.

Your post merely shows that you are quite frankly.

I think the IRA campaign is a clear example of tone deafness on behalf of Irish nationalism.

The only saving grace is that only a very very small minority ever supported them. The vast majority hated them.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the IRA campaign is a clear example of tone deafness on behalf of Irish nationalism.

The only saving grace is that only a very very small minority ever supported them. The vast majority hated them.

The IRA only ever got a foothold when Irish governments ignored their people.
The supreme triumph of SF has been to turn FG into a republican Irish unity party by simply leaving the biggest crisis in partition to them.
Imagine, FG may deliver unity.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The IRA only ever got a foothold when Irish governments ignored their people.
The supreme triumph of SF has been to turn FG into a republican Irish unity party by simply leaving the biggest crisis in partition to them.
Imagine, FG may deliver unity.

I thought the IRA got a foothold when the British army went about shooting innocent people on the streets of Derry?
The British are delivering unity not FG and certainly not SF. Yet a other page from the SF can do no wrong book

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

I think the IRA campaign is a clear example of tone deafness on behalf of Irish nationalism.

The only saving grace is that only a very very small minority ever supported them. The vast majority hated them.

That's complete revisionist nonsense.

I guess the IRA formed in the same vacuum that people are calling for SF to fill with their votes in the HoC?

J Mysterio

Spook_ie wrote: »

In the interest of balanced debate, I wonder if the next time someone brings up 800 years of.... You'll ask them to move on?

Eh, sorry. She is the First Minister of Northern Ireland!

That should mean that she should be held to a standard that would involve not tweeting inflammatory/ antagonistic material every other day. It's not mature and it's not appropriate for someone in her position. I hold her in contempt.

trellheim

She is the First Minister of Northern Ireland!

Arlene Foster stopped being First Minister when Martin McGuinness resigned. She does not hold that role at the moment.

Imreoir2

J Mysterio wrote: »

Eh, sorry. She is the First Minister of Northern Ireland!

That should mean that she should be held to a standard that would involve not tweeting inflammatory/ antagonistic material every other day. It's not mature and it's not appropriate for someone in her position. I hold her in contempt.

No she's not, NI has no government. She is leader of the DUP and nothing more.

J Mysterio

Alright, 'was'. I guess her behaviour has assured that it is 'was' rather than 'is'.

trellheim

The point was made on the Andrew Neil shows that if we had a GE we would likely get Theresa May back again

Strazdas

Angry bird wrote: »

The FT are merely reporting on the latest negotiations between the UK and itself. Of course there is no such agreement in sight. The EU will likely keep the door ajar but report at the summit next Wednesday that there is no current basis for a further summit in November given the lack of firm details from the UK and that the focus is switching to preparations for a no deal. Like Salzburg, this focuses the attention right back to the UK. Further infighting is likely and on cue the DUP are lining themselves up as the expendables.

I'm rather suspicious of claims that the UK will be allowed remain in a customs union with the EU alright, it sounds hard to believe.

P_1

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yes. It's SFs fault.

Please for the umpteenth time explain to me what SFs votes will do?

Other than destroy the very fabric of the party?

The Irish Govt are doing sterling work keeping NI at the top of the agenda. Why would SF start to interfere?

The nails are slowly being driven into the DUP coffin. Let them continue to use the hammer.

SF getting involved in the process at any point and for any reason will only galvanise unionism.

Is that inherently a bad thing? Sooner NI has cooler heads in power and drops the bollox over the interpretation of a bronze age text from their politics the better.

Theres a theory that the SF/DUP duopoly is only maintained because any right thinking person in NI gets the fook out of dodge as soon as the opportunity presents itself

murphaph

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm rather suspicious of claims that the UK will be allowed remain in a customs union with the EU alright, it sounds hard to believe.

The EU would have absolutely no issue with that. Turkey is in a customs union with the EU. It is probably even slightly advantageous for the EU over the UK not being in the customs union as it would maintain tariff free access to the UK market for our manufactured goods (think Irish beef and German cars) while the UK is not a strong exporter of manufactured goods in the first place and the advantage to their mass car industry (mostly Toyota, Nissan and Honda) will be drastically reduced by the upcoming EU-Japan FTA.

Angry bird

P_1 wrote: »

Is that inherently a bad thing? Sooner NI has cooler heads in power and drops the bollox over the interpretation of a bronze age text from their politics the better.

Theres a theory that the SF/DUP duopoly is only maintained because any right thinking person in NI gets the fook out of dodge as soon as the opportunity presents itself

That would be wrong. There's no denying the tribal politics and most vote for their side. The DUP are competing vs the UUP and it pays to have tougher language, slogans and so on. Same on the other side. All aimed at not giving into the other tribe. Nationalists have turned their back on Westminster, they see how unimportant they are in London re Brexit, with a NI secretary who hasn't a clue. Deal or no deal, this genie won't easily be put back in its bottle. Border poll in 10 years.

Angry bird

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm rather suspicious of claims that the UK will be allowed remain in a customs union with the EU alright, it sounds hard to believe.

Absolutely agree, I fell for the FT article last week on a deal. Until European new agencies and Tony Connelly in RTE report about a deal, then it's safe to assume that it's more kite flying etc from the UK. In short they're full of it.

Peregrinus

Angry bird wrote: »

Absolutely agree, I fell for the FT article last week on a deal. Until European new agencies and Tony Connelly in RTE report about a deal, then it's safe to assume that it's more kite flying etc from the UK. In short they're full of it.

This tweet from Tony Connelly confirms that the UK-wide customs arrangement is under discussion, and suggests that the point of difference between the two sides is whether it should be time-limited (as the UK wants) or indefinite (as the EU wants), rather than whether there should be a UK-wide customs deal at all.

The whole thread is worth your time.

Peregrinus

It seems clear enough that a deal including all-UK participation in the Customs Union (by whatever name) is the "landing ground" that the officials on both sides are trying to define. It will then be up to the principals on both sides to decide whether they want to land there, but the officials would not be wasting their time if they were not pretty confident that their principals will choose to land there.

On May's side, there is then the further question of when she might choose (publicly) to land there. The strategy all along has been to wait until the veryveryvery last minute before making a concession, to give the ultrabrexiters minimal time to react or respond. In this situation she has the added pressure of not wanting to annoy the DUP before the budget on 29 October. But (again from Tony Connelly's tweets) the EU won't wait that long. The European Council meets on Wednesday; they'll be endorsing the plan then, and its terms will be out in the open. May can't prevaricate for a fortnight.

Angry bird

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems clear enough that a deal including all-UK participation in the Customs Union (by whatever name) is the "landing ground" that the officials on both sides are trying to define. It will then be up to the principals on both sides to decide whether they want to land there, but the officials would not be wasting their time if they were not pretty confident that their principals will choose to land there.

On May's side, there is then the further question of when she might choose (publicly) to land there. The strategy all along has been to wait until the veryveryvery last minute before making a concession, to give the ultrabrexiters minimal time to react or respond. In this situation she has the added pressure of not wanting to annoy the DUP before the budget on 29 October. But (again from Tony Connelly's tweets) the EU won't wait that long. The European Council meets on Wednesday; they'll be endorsing the plan then, and its terms will be out in the open. May can't prevaricate for a fortnight.

May could well agree, I just doubt her ability to actually carry an agreement.

Peregrinus

Angry bird wrote: »

May could well agree, I just doubt her ability to actually carry an agreement.

Time will tell; she has shown remarkable survivability since April 2017, so I wouldn't write her off just yet.

If the deal is going to become unstuck, I think May would rather that happen because (a) she struck a deal but Parliament rejected it, than because (b) she walked away from the EU's best offer. If there's no deal the possible consequences are diverse, but they are all pretty horrendous and May will want to be able to blame someone else for it. Therefore she will in the end accept a deal that she can't get through the party or through Parliament rather than reject that deal because she knows she can't get it through the party or through Parliament.

So my guess is that there will be a deal between HMG and the Commission, though it may get derailed by the Tory party or by Parliament.

Angry bird

Peregrinus wrote: »

Time will tell; she has shown remarkable survivability since April 2017, so I wouldn't write her off just yet.

If the deal is going to become unstuck, I think May would rather that happen because (a) she struck a deal but Parliament rejected it, than because (b) she walked away from the EU's best offer. If there's no deal the possible consequences are diverse, but they are all pretty horrendous and May will want to be able to blame someone else for it. Therefore she will in the end accept a deal that she can't get through the party or through Parliament rather than reject that deal because she knows she can't get it through the party or through Parliament.

So my guess is that there will be a deal between HMG and the Commission, though it may get derailed by the Tory party or by Parliament.

Absolutely, May may be politically weak but she has known for a long time that the tactics of her opponents in the Tories is to blame her no matter what she does. She's had quite a long time to prepare and she's demonstrated an uncannily ability this far to survive. It's unfortunate that we're still here 2 years later watching the UK negotiate with itself. The EU understands all this which is why they've mostly indulged the person they know they can make a deal with, that plus the EU holds the cards.

prawnsambo

I don't know if she can survive. She's consistently used the A50 negotiations to try and get a post-brexit trade deal with the EU. Her party (and the press) has gone along with this charade because they all (bar a few) seem to be as dumb as a bucket of hair. Extraordinarily so. As soon as the realisation dawns - and she's been kicking the day of reckoning down the road as far as she can - she has to be gone.