Brexit discussion thread IV

Phoebas

BonnieSituation wrote: »

If he wants to go down that road we can always remind him about who owns NIE.

We should just ignore impotent blowhards.

The idea that the Irish Government should 'remind' NI politicians about the ownership of NUI is Daily Mail level stupidness.

FrancieBrady

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm struggling to see any political advantage whatsoever in putting 'egg on Theresa May's face'.

There wouldn't be a whole pile of room left in fairness.

Enzokk

Trasna1 wrote: »

I don't really think that it would have made much difference if they took their seats. Every bit of problematic legislation voted through can be overturned when the final withdrawal treaty is voted on.

The only place SF could make a difference is that if they voted in a confidence motion to collapse the government. That would be very risky for them as they would precipitate an election immediately after abandoning a core principle.

As I was trying to say, in hindsight they should have taken up their seats. But to expect them to have only taken their seats for these votes is not reasonable. Had they taken up their seats at the start of the current parliament it would have made a difference regarding the votes. Just the threat of her majority being even smaller than it is now would be a warning. Seeing that Theresa May won the votes in the ERG amendments by a maximum of 4 votes (I think), simple arithmetic tells you their 7 votes would have swing it the other way.

The vote on the customs union where the Tories played the system was won by 6 votes. Again simple math tells you their 7 votes would have changed the result.

But I am not blaming them for the vote results. They have always run on not taking up their seats, but their votes could have made it very hard for Theresa May.

Dyr

blanch152 wrote: »

Another one who wants to throw the GFA in the bin. Seriously lads, we have legal commitments enshrined in the GFA that we must stick to.

You should give it a read it sometime. There's absolutely nothing in the Good Friday Agreement that would prevent an Taoiseach from taking a spin over the border, or even meeting his cabinet up there. In fact, it facilitates it

Theresa's wacky DUP plan however, is going to drive a coach and four through the GFA.

Rjd2

devnull wrote: »

Don't worry, they're already getting their revenge and punishment stories ready in the press

https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1020058456194154496

Just as dishonest as the politicians they support.

One of those things which is amusing if if you rely on the right wing tabloids for information on Leo and did not really research him elsewhere, you'd have this image of him as a firebrand, wild nationalist intent on bringing the empire down.:o:pac:

I think even he would admit, that's not really close to the truth.:D

captainspeed wrote: »

Yvette Cooper is very good at skewering anyone who starts telling her nonsense.

What a shame she's not the leader of the Labour Party over there.

May struggles with her hugely and that's an opinion I have seen repeated quite a bit from the likes of the spectator etc.

Corbyn to be fair has landed some blows on May recently, but at times seems more interested in grand standing and creating social media viral content. It may work long term, but ultimately May is an average politician fronting a disaster and she should be getting hammered every week, fact is she isn't.

Infini

Enzokk wrote: »

As I was trying to say, in hindsight they should have taken up their seats. But to expect them to have only taken their seats for these votes is not reasonable. Had they taken up their seats at the start of the current parliament it would have made a difference regarding the votes. Just the threat of her majority being even smaller than it is now would be a warning. Seeing that Theresa May won the votes in the ERG amendments by a maximum of 4 votes (I think), simple arithmetic tells you their 7 votes would have swing it the other way.

The vote on the customs union where the Tories played the system was won by 6 votes. Again simple math tells you their 7 votes would have changed the result.

But I am not blaming them for the vote results. They have always run on not taking up their seats, but their votes could have made it very hard for Theresa May.

There is one thing though about Sinn Fein's abstentionist policy though: It suit's their agenda for Britain to screw up royally on their own. The abstentionist thing isnt new it's part and parcel on why they get elected. The thing though is if Britain crashes out hard though it become's a MASSIVE point towards reunification for them as it allow's them to make a perfect example on why should NI stay part of a country that crashed out with no interest in all the warning signs. As an added bonus they can hammer the DUP endlessly for supporting a policy that ironically lead to the situation of reunification coming about in the first place, ie. We had a perfect situation, we had the best of both worlds but the DUP just couldn't leave it well enough alone.

BonnieSituation

Phoebas wrote: »

We should just ignore impotent blowhards.

The idea that the Irish Government should 'remind' NI politicians about the ownership of NUI NIE is Daily Mail level stupidness.

You're not really one for "humour" or facetiousness are ya?

Enzokk wrote: »

As I was trying to say, in hindsight they should have taken up their seats. But to expect them to have only taken their seats for these votes is not reasonable. Had they taken up their seats at the start of the current parliament it would have made a difference regarding the votes. Just the threat of her majority being even smaller than it is now would be a warning. Seeing that Theresa May won the votes in the ERG amendments by a maximum of 4 votes (I think), simple arithmetic tells you their 7 votes would have swing it the other way.

The vote on the customs union where the Tories played the system was won by 6 votes. Again simple math tells you their 7 votes would have changed the result.

But I am not blaming them for the vote results. They have always run on not taking up their seats, but their votes could have made it very hard for Theresa May.

But simple arithmetic only works in a vacuum. There would be nothing simple about SF taking up their seats to vote. And it would not occur in a vacuum. And as soon as they do take up their seats to vote you can bet your bottom dollar that others will cross the lobbies or abstain to ensure that they are NOT on the winning side and are NOT stifling "the will of the people". We are dealing with a group of insanely petty people. SF's votes WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE.

BonnieSituation

Infini wrote: »

There is one thing though about Sinn Fein's abstentionist policy though: It suit's their agenda for Britain to screw up royally on their own. The abstentionist thing isnt new it's part and parcel on why they get elected. The thing though is if Britain crashes out hard though it become's a MASSIVE point towards reunification for them as it allow's them to make a perfect example on why should NI stay part of a country that crashed out with no interest in all the warning signs. As an added bonus they can hammer the DUP endlessly for supporting a policy that ironically lead to the situation of reunification coming about in the first place, ie. We had a perfect situation, we had the best of both worlds but the DUP just couldn't leave it well enough alone.

One of the points I have been making over and over and still people insist that SF's votes would have made a difference and that they should feck their "principles".

Enzokk

Infini wrote: »

There is one thing though about Sinn Fein's abstentionist policy though: It suit's their agenda for Britain to screw up royally on their own. The abstentionist thing isnt new it's part and parcel on why they get elected. The thing though is if Britain crashes out hard though it become's a MASSIVE point towards reunification for them as it allow's them to make a perfect example on why should NI stay part of a country that crashed out with no interest in all the warning signs. As an added bonus they can hammer the DUP endlessly for supporting a policy that ironically lead to the situation of reunification coming about in the first place, ie. We had a perfect situation, we had the best of both worlds but the DUP just couldn't leave it well enough alone.

That is one of the most frustrating things about Brexit. We have politicians on all sides that are taking positions where they are taking some huge gambles on the outcome for their own personal beliefs. I believe that Jeremy Corbyn could hit Theresa May very hard and force an election, but I think he will be very happy should he get to be PM of a country that is outside of the EU

This is not only a criticism of Sinn Fein, I also believe the SNP is in the same boat. The only difference I guess is that they have taken up their seats, because...you know history. But they will also benefit from an absolute screw up from the UK government and it will further their own causes.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

But simple arithmetic only works in a vacuum. There would be nothing simple about SF taking up their seats to vote. And it would not occur in a vacuum. And as soon as they do take up their seats to vote you can bet your bottom dollar that others will cross the lobbies or abstain to ensure that they are NOT on the winning side and are NOT stifling "the will of the people". We are dealing with a group of insanely petty people. SF's votes WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE.

So you are telling me that just enough people rebelled to not lose the vote? Think carefully what you are saying now. You are saying that the party decided beforehand that only 14 of their party would be pro-EU enough to stand by their principles. They also then colluded with Labour so that 4 of their MPs would vote with the government so that the Tory rebels would not overturn the result. Had Sinn Fein been there to vote you are saying that those rebels would have changed their minds on principle and would have voted with the government.

Are you sure you want to keep deflecting from reality? Occam's razor would lend that the simple explanation is that the vote passed by a majority of between 3-6 votes. SF has 7 seats, if you want to get to the thinking that their votes would not have made a difference you have to make some wild leaps of logic.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

One of the points I have been making over and over and still people insist that SF's votes owudl ahve made a difference and that they should feck their "principles".

I have no problem with them sticking to their principles, but do not insult people's intelligence by trying to deflect the facts of what could have happened. This is the same as after Tuesday's votes where Labour supporters were trying to shift the focus on how Anna Soubry would speak against a proposal but then vote for it in the past, so people shouldn't praise her too highly for rebelling at the vote. Instead of focusing on the 4 Labour votes that allowed the amendments to pass they were deflecting the attention elsewhere.

To add insult to their wounds those 4, then 5, MP's again defied their party and voted the next day with Theresa May. Had they not done that there could have been a motion of confidence against her. So they stopped their party from going to power, I believe had those voices that are very pro-Labour and pro Jeremy Corbyn not spent the night trying to deflect praise off Soubry and instead focused on getting their own MP's to vote with their party they could have made a difference.

So I don't blame SF for not taking their seats. I applaud them sticking to their principles, but accept that had they been there it could have made a huge difference.

J Mysterio

May to say backstop deal would be in breach of Belfast AgreementBritish leader to speak at Waterfront Hall of ‘economic and constitutional dislocation’

"Theresa May will use a speech in Belfast on Friday to rule out agreeing to any Border backstop based on the European Union’s proposal to keep Northern Ireland in the customs union and parts of the single market.

"Speaking at Belfast’s Waterfront Hall, she will say that the EU’s proposal is in breach of the Belfast Agreement, leaving the people of Northern Ireland without their own voice in trade negotiations and would be destabilising for their economy.

“The economic and constitutional dislocation of a formal ‘third country’ customs border within our own country is something I will never accept and I believe no British prime minister could ever accept. And as they made clear this week, it is not something the House of Commons will accept either,” she will say.

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

So you are telling me that just enough people rebelled to not lose the vote? Think carefully what you are saying now. You are saying that the party decided beforehand that only 14 of their party would be pro-EU enough to stand by their principles. They also then colluded with Labour so that 4 of their MPs would vote with the government so that the Tory rebels would not overturn the result. Had Sinn Fein been there to vote you are saying that those rebels would have changed their minds on principle and would have voted with the government.

That's not at all what I'm saying. And I don't know why you have developed such a long-winded theory above as to what it is that I am saying. I've repeated ad nauseum what I think the effect of SF taking up their seats would be and I will do it again... NO EFFECT

You seem to be thinking that we just plop in 7 more votes and Bob's your Mother's brother and that will be that. Straight into a vacuum where their presence will have no bearing on the reactions or the mental state of an already wound up chamber.

How could you think otherwise?

Seriously. I actually don't understand how you and others, and FWIW I enjoy your contribuitions generally as much as others, but Im sorry, I am lost for words that you seriously think that it is a simple question of maths.

Are you sure you want to keep deflecting from reality? Occam's razor would lend that the simple explanation is that the vote passed by a majority of between 3-6 votes. SF has 7 seats, if you want to get to the thinking that their votes would not have made a difference you have to make some wild leaps of logic.

Of course that logic works if you literally plonk them down during a division and have them vote.
But there is no way that the earthquake of SF taking their seats wouldn't have other ([un]intended) consequences. Do you appreciate that SF doing so would not rally the troops and cause all sorts of dealing to occur to ensure that SINN FÉIN/IRA don't defeat the British Government in the House of Commons in Westminster? Because that's what you think is going to happen. And there is no way it would transpire as you think.

It just couldn't possibly.

I have no problem with them sticking to their principles, but do not insult people's intelligence by trying to deflect the facts of what could have happened. This is the same as after Tuesday's votes where Labour supporters were trying to shift the focus on how Anna Soubry would speak against a proposal but then vote for it in the past, so people shouldn't praise her too highly for rebelling at the vote. Instead of focusing on the 4 Labour votes that allowed the amendments to pass they were deflecting the attention elsewhere

How is that what I'm doing?

I'm merely pointing out that SF taking up their seats is not the sinple arithmetic you would like to think it is. It will not occur in a vacuum. It just can't. I can keep repeating myself if you wish.

Remember this is the place were Airey Neave was murdered (I know it was the INLA [apparently], but sure they're all Paddys). And you think that SF can just waltz in and vote and it will have no consequences other than changing the maths?

To add insult to their wounds those 4, then 5, MP's again defied their party and voted the next day with Theresa May. Had they not done that there could have been a motion of confidence against her. So they stopped their party from going to power, I believe had those voices that are very pro-Labour and pro Jeremy Corbyn not spent the night trying to deflect praise of Soubry and instead focused on getting their own MP's to vote with their party they could have made a difference.

So it's SFs fault that there was a no motion of confidence because the lunaticker fringe of the Labour Party chose to defy their party?

That's stretching it beyond credible.

So I don't blame SF for not taking their seats. I applaud them sticking to their principles, but accept that had they been there it could have made a huge difference.

I won't accept that because they would have made NO difference.

Enzokk

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So it's SFs fault that there was a no motion of confidence because the lunaticker fringe of the Labour Party chose to defy their party?

That's stretching it beyond credible.

We have different opinions on what effect their votes may have had. We can play the game of what may possibly happen with people's opinion of Sinn Fein and how they could possibly have reacted. Either way it didn't matter as the Labour votes for the government was the crucial difference.

That leads me to your reply above. You would need to show me where I blamed Sinn Fein for the Labour rebels not voting with their party. I was comparing the reaction of supporters of both parties (I am assuming you are a Sinn Fein supporter) to each other. They are deflecting or at least trying to deflect the attention from their own parties and decisions so that people wouldn't focus too hard on their actions.

I blame Labour a million times more for this than Sinn Fein. The simple truth is that those amendments could have been overturned had they not voted against their party. This could also possible have led to a motion of confidence against the government. Not the Sinn Fein votes but the Labour rebels. But their is an interesting what if question regarding those seats that SF holds in Westminster, especially with the majority this small.

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

May to say backstop deal would be in breach of Belfast AgreementBritish leader to speak at Waterfront Hall of ‘economic and constitutional dislocation’

"Theresa May will use a speech in Belfast on Friday to rule out agreeing to any Border backstop based on the European Union’s proposal to keep Northern Ireland in the customs union and parts of the single market.

"Speaking at Belfast’s Waterfront Hall, she will say that the EU’s proposal is in breach of the Belfast Agreement, leaving the people of Northern Ireland without their own voice in trade negotiations and would be destabilising for their economy.

“The economic and constitutional dislocation of a formal ‘third country’ customs border within our own country is something I will never accept and I believe no British prime minister could ever accept. And as they made clear this week, it is not something the House of Commons will accept either,” she will say.

I honestly think she's just trying to fool herself at this point. Her party allowing the DUP a kingmaker position in the government, a party that not only doesnt represent the majority of people there but doesn't represent the view of how they voted either is a breach of the agreement as is Brexit itself for creating this situation.

As for not accepting a custom's border it's going to come down to a very simple matter of the EU saying to her: "If you dont want to see your country crash into a depression because of your own goverment's incompetence, ignorance and blatant stupidity your going to be forced to accept these arrangement's not least because you lack any other credible alternative other than locking yourselves out of the biggest market in the neibourhood for a very long time.

You made your bed now you can lie in it."

Leroy42

If May delivers the speech as being reported, then she is giving two fingers to the EU and Ireland.

SF having seats in WM can't deal with a government reneging on agreements it itself made.

UK wants Brexit, it wants it so much that it prepared to renege directly on one agreement (which it is clear now was only 'agreed to' in order to get what it wanted) but is willing to put jeopardy a 20 year agreement that has brought peace to the very union they profess to love.

I think its crazy that we are discussing SF on the day that May is doing that.

I have no time for SF, disagree on nearly everything they stand for, and personally think that they should take up their seats in WM after being elected. But everything about this mess is 100% on the UK.

If Leo etc are called out for pointing out the realities can you imagine the freak out if the government was defeated due to votes from SF?

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

If May delivers the speech as being reported, then she is giving two fingers to the EU and Ireland.

SF having seats in WM can't deal with a government reneging on agreements it itself made.

UK wants Brexit, it wants it so much that it prepared to renege directly on one agreement (which it is clear now was only 'agreed to' in order to get what it wanted) but is willing to put jeopardy a 20 year agreement that has brought peace to the very union they profess to love.

I think its crazy that we are discussing SF on the day that May is doing that.

I have no time for SF, disagree on nearly everything they stand for, and personally think that they should take up their seats in WM after being elected. But everything about this mess is 100% on the UK.

If Leo etc are called out for pointing out the realities can you imagine the freak out if the government was defeated due to votes from SF?

Agree 100%. I have basically no time for SF either but this mes is not of their making. This is a UK mess.

Akrasia

Trasna1 wrote: »

I don't really think that it would have made much difference if they took their seats. Every bit of problematic legislation voted through can be overturned when the final withdrawal treaty is voted on.

The only place SF could make a difference is that if they voted in a confidence motion to collapse the government. That would be very risky for them as they would precipitate an election immediately after abandoning a core principle.

Sinn fein would need to call an Ard Fheis before changing their policy on voting in Westminster. If Mary Lou announced an emergency Ard Fheis tomorrow it would give Theresa May such a heart attack that she might offer them concessions without them having to even break their position on not taking their seats at Westminster

Akrasia

backspin. wrote: »

Similar article in the dailymail about Leo 'threatening' to stop UK planes. 5000 comments so far and majority of them ripping into Ireland and the Irish.

Vladimir Putin's troll army are in overtime this week so.

Mancomb Seepgood

In order to take their seats in Westminster,Sinn Fein would have to start making the case to their own people and probably hold a special Ard Fheis to pass it.There would be a good chance of some sort of split if the history of republicanism is anything to go by.By which point there would probably have been a general election and any members from Northern Ireland would again be completely irrelevant in terms of the Westminster arithmetic,as they usually are.

I'm no Sinn Fein supporter but they would be mad to attempt this.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

“The economic and constitutional dislocation of a formal ‘third country’ customs border within our own country is something I will never accept

No worries Theresa, just keep your whole country in the SM, problem solved.

zapitastas

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

In order to take their seats in Westminster,Sinn Fein would have to start making the case to their own people and probably hold a special Ard Fheis to pass it.There would be a good chance of some sort of split if the history of republicanism is anything to go by.By which point there would probably have been a general election and any members from Northern Ireland would again be completely irrelevant in terms of the Westminster arithmetic,as they usually are.

I'm no Sinn Fein supporter but they would be mad to attempt this.

That is the most likely outcome if they had decided to go down that route. A republican paty swearing allegiance to a British monarch in order to be able to cast votes in the HoC wouldn't exactly be too palatable to many members

Anthracite

Leroy42 wrote: »

If Leo etc are called out for pointing out the realities can you imagine the freak out if the government was defeated due to votes from SF?

Let them freak. Their pivot into anti-democracy would be quite interesting to watch, having beaten everyone over the head with the 'will of the people' thought-terminating cliché for the past 2 years.

Christy42

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

In order to take their seats in Westminster,Sinn Fein would have to start making the case to their own people and probably hold a special Ard Fheis to pass it.There would be a good chance of some sort of split if the history of republicanism is anything to go by.By which point there would probably have been a general election and any members from Northern Ireland would again be completely irrelevant in terms of the Westminster arithmetic,as they usually are.

I'm no Sinn Fein supporter but they would be mad to attempt this.

Both sides of the split would still vote Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein do not get votes because they don't take their seats. They get votes because they are seen as the opposite of the DUP (similar to how the DUP get votes really).

Having said that this is on the English parties though the duo is definitely not helping. Sinn Fein are irrelevant in these discussions really.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

UK wants Brexit, it wants it so much that it prepared to renege directly on one agreement (which it is clear now was only 'agreed to' in order to get what it wanted) but is willing to put jeopardy a 20 year agreement that has brought peace to the very union they profess to love.

Theresa May sems to be the personification of the Tory party, and maybe the UK as a whole. I was about to say that anyone else with the tiniest hint of self-respect or integrity would have resigned already, but the two contenders to succeed her, Boris and Rees-Mogg, are just as unprincipled and mendacious.

IMO even Jeremy Corbyn is complicit, as he won't state his own position on the EU honestly, instead ducking and diving while he hopes the Tory party self-destructs, and he is refusing to hold the government to account.

Is this the new normal, the new British post-truth politics?

Even if Brexit is averted (which I very much doubt) the reputational damage already done to the UK is staggering, and will not be undone easily.

The British state has shown itself on the world stage to be unreliable, untrustworthy, unprincipled, dishonest, disrespectful, rude, insulting, boorish, incompetent, arrogant and lazy, to an extent that is really quite amazing.

They have alienated many of their erstwhile EU allies and don't seem to care.

It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK is rapidly becoming a failed state.

lawred2

swampgas wrote: »

Theresa May sems to be the personification of the Tory party, and maybe the UK as a whole. I was about to say that anyone else with the tiniest hint of self-respect or integrity would have resigned already, but the two contenders to succeed her, Boris and Rees-Mogg, are just as unprincipled and mendacious.

IMO even Jeremy Corbyn is complicit, as he won't state his own position on the EU honestly, instead ducking and diving while he hopes the Tory party self-destructs, and he is refusing to hold the government to account.

Is this the new normal, the new British post-truth politics?

Even if Brexit is averted (which I very much doubt) the reputational damage already done to the UK is staggering, and will not be undone easily.

The British state has shown itself on the world stage to be unreliable, untrustworthy, unprincipled, dishonest, disrespectful, rude, insulting, boorish, incompetent, arrogant and lazy, to an extent that is really quite amazing.

They have alienated many of their erstwhile EU allies and don't seem to care.

It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK is rapidly becoming a failed state.

I was thinking about this earlier.

All these trade deals that Britain sees in its post Brexit future - who in their right mind would want to deal with them as they are behaving right now?

They are proving themselves at best dimwitted and incompetent and at worst disrespectful, unreliable, dishonest and deceitful.

Compare that to the free trade negotiations that the EU undertakes with other nations. Entered into with mutual respect and with a clear and largely unchanging set of requirements communicated calmly and clearly by professionals.

The exact opposite of the UK.

No country will want to be eager to enter into such negotiations with those whose requirements could freely change from day to day.

Although in a perverse way I for one would love to see trade talks between the US and the UK. Between Trump and that shower in Westminster it would turn into some sh!tshow.

J Mysterio

swampgas wrote: »

Theresa May sems to be the personification of the Tory party, and maybe the UK as a whole. I was about to say that anyone else with the tiniest hint of self-respect or integrity would have resigned already, but the two contenders to succeed her, Boris and Rees-Mogg, are just as unprincipled and mendacious.

IMO even Jeremy Corbyn is complicit, as he won't state his own position on the EU honestly, instead ducking and diving while he hopes the Tory party self-destructs, and he is refusing to hold the government to account.

Is this the new normal, the new British post-truth politics?

Even if Brexit is averted (which I very much doubt) the reputational damage already done to the UK is staggering, and will not be undone easily.

The British state has shown itself on the world stage to be unreliable, untrustworthy, unprincipled, dishonest, disrespectful, rude, insulting, boorish, incompetent, arrogant and lazy, to an extent that is really quite amazing.

They have alienated many of their erstwhile EU allies and don't seem to care.

It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that the UK is rapidly becoming a failed state.

Couldnt agree more.

Enzokk

I understand the realities of Sinn Fein and taking their seats in Westminster. They would not have been able to just take it for this vote. But it is clear that 7 votes would have made a difference to the outcome if you look at the numbers alone. Would never happen though.

The blame for the lost votes fall squarely on Labour. They had the votes but lost 4 or 5 of their own MPs. They were lambasting Anna Soubry for her voting record of speaking against the government position but then voting for it. The idiotic thing is that they could have done with her in their party, talking against their position but then voting for it.

swampgas wrote: »

IMO even Jeremy Corbyn is complicit, as he won't state his own position on the EU honestly, instead ducking and diving while he hopes the Tory party self-destructs, and he is refusing to hold the government to account.

He has stated his position. It's all sunshine and roses but seeing as he is not negotiating with the EU there is no-one that could show him the realities of what he wants. Why would Barnier be spending time negotiating with Labour on their position? So he wants to end FOM, leave the customs union because in reality that is what people voted for. He wants a comprehensive trade deal that will negate the need for a border. This is the Theresa May position but without red lines.

Leo Varadkar’s talk about there being no RoI/NI border checks not shared by Brussels according to this Irish Times article. I can’t honestly see how we would avoid border controls if a no deal Brexit occurs as an external EU frontier will be created. Is Leo afraid of adverse domestic opinion over this issue?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-confidence-of-no-border-controls-not-shared-in-brussels-1.3570514?mode=amp

badtoro

Think the failed state description is OTT, however the behavioural description is spot on. They are dealing in bad faith, publicly.

axer

Enzokk wrote: »

I understand the realities of Sinn Fein and taking their seats in Westminster. They would not have been able to just take it for this vote. But it is clear that 7 votes would have made a difference to the outcome if you look at the numbers alone. Would never happen though.

Maybe after the fact but if Sinn Fein showed up the difference in the number of votes would not be just 5 or 6 or whatever. You would have a lot less torys rebelling. That's why its pointless even discussing it and the people that are using it to bash Sinn Fein are those looking for any stick to bash them.

Anyone know what time May's speech is on today?

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Leo Varadkar’s talk about there being no RoI/NI border checks not shared by Brussels according to this Irish Times article. I can’t honestly see how we would avoid border controls if a no deal Brexit occurs as an external EU frontier will be created. Is Leo afraid of adverse domestic opinion over this issue?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-confidence-of-no-border-controls-not-shared-in-brussels-1.3570514?mode=amp

I feel for Leo on this. I think the government has played this about as well as they could. They made NI a central issue, they got the EU on board, they got the agreement from TM in December.

Now, even at the time I could see this was a fudge and I felt it was a get out given to the UK too easily, but I accept that it was probably the best solution at the time.

Let us not forget that the deal that TM is reneging on is the compromise deal that was negotiated after the original deal she agreed to was stopped by the DUP.

Based on that, and on the not unreasonable position that the UK would stand by their agreement, Leo really had little other options but to let it play out.

I hold the fault for this squarely on the feet of the UK. We can argue all day about what Leo could have/should have done, but in reality TM has shown that regardless of anything we, or the EU would have done, she is simply too weak and too enthralled to Brexit to have made any difference. The only difference that could have been made is timing.

Leonard Hofstadter

Deleted User wrote: »

Is Leo afraid of adverse domestic opinion over this issue?

Quite possibly yes. I thought it was a very strange comment for him to make even if Juncker said this to him in private.

If there's no deal then all bets have to be off and there will have to be a border.

I don't see why he should have to pay a political price considering that Britain twice agreed to something they now want to pull out of, I don't know what he and Coveney could have done differently.

We can't prevent Britain from crashing out with no deal if that is what they want to do (why they would want to do it God only knows but they seem fairly hell bent on doing so nonetheless) and destroying their reputation abroad with all those countries they want to do these trade deals with.

LeinsterDub

Deleted User wrote: »

Leo Varadkar’s talk about there being no RoI/NI border checks not shared by Brussels according to this Irish Times article. I can’t honestly see how we would avoid border controls if a no deal Brexit occurs as an external EU frontier will be created. Is Leo afraid of adverse domestic opinion over this issue?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-s-confidence-of-no-border-controls-not-shared-in-brussels-1.3570514?mode=amp

We can avoid border controls if the EU agree to ignore the WTO and kick the can down the road

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

An interesting article on WTO border rules:

https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2018/07/18/does-the-wto-require-countries-to-control-their-borders/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

listermint

We are all talking about a Government here, whos members of it are actively engaged with Russian people of immense means and wealth. Running companies and acting as advisors to organisations with vast amounts of Russian Money, Where Russian itself has for years and is currently actively pursuing a campaign of misinformation and misdirection via Forums, Social Media , comment sections on articles on an hourly basis on the UK population.

And the government is literally disinterested.

A foreign power engaged in active mind games against its popuplation

And it doesn't care, one bit.

The Similarities between the Tory Party and Donald Trump are not isolated and they are so parallel to seem bizarre in normal circumstances.

War is afoot and not the traditional ones we all know and avoid, Its full blown Cyber information war on a scale never before deployed.

ArmaniJeanss

backspin. wrote: »

Similar article in the dailymail about Leo 'threatening' to stop UK planes. 5000 comments so far and majority of them ripping into Ireland and the Irish.

Fascinating the difference in the comments sections when Tusk or Juncker say something that the Mail/Express people don't like as opposed to when Leo says something.
They don't get stereotypically derogatory towards the entire population of Luxembourg, or suggest threatening their military power against Poland. I understand it's partly that Leo is the serving PM whereas the other two are exPMs with different roles now, but there does seem to be a healthy dashing of anti-Irish racism in there.

J Mysterio

LeinsterDub wrote: »

We can avoid border controls if the EU agree to ignore the WTO and kick the can down the road

That won't/ can't happen.

LeinsterDub

J Mysterio wrote: »

That won't/ can't happen.

Can't and won't are two completely different things . It can happen it's entirely possible however it most likely won't happen.

Leroy42

I just don't understand what TM is playing at. Why give the speech today? She has just sent over the white paper (amended WP at this stage) lost two ministers and yet just as the EU are saying that they are looking to the negotiations back on track she is literally throwing out the whole thing.

What is the political thinking behind this? She already has the DUP support. Its not even a question of why she is doing it, but more why is she doing it now?

prawnsambo

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fascinating the difference in the comments sections when Tusk or Juncker say something that the Mail/Express people don't like as opposed to when Leo says something.
They don't get stereotypically derogatory towards the entire population of Luxembourg, or suggest threatening their military power against Poland. I understand it's partly that Leo is the serving PM whereas the other two are exPMs with different roles now, but there does seem to be a healthy dashing of anti-Irish racism in there.

Well they still expect us to tug the forelock when addressing them, so it's not really that surprisiing.

Sierra Oscar

Leroy42 wrote: »

I just don't understand what TM is playing at. Why give the speech today? She has just sent over the white paper (amended WP at this stage) lost two ministers and yet just as the EU are saying that they are looking to the negotiations back on track she is literally throwing out the whole thing.

What is the political thinking behind this? She already has the DUP support. Its not even a question of why she is doing it, but more why is she doing it now?

Keep in mind she is visiting Northern Ireland at the request of the DUP. You can be pretty certain they are putting serious pressure on her to rule out a border at the Irish Sea.

Of course the backdrop to all of this is that the UK Government would more than likely have collapsed this week if it didn't have the support of the DUP.

There cannot be a soft Brexit while the DUP are propping up the UK Government.

I highlighted this on numerous occasions when the backstop was agreed last December. The DUP will never, ever allow special customs arrangements for Northern Ireland. They will not tolerate a fragmentation of the Union. They would rather a hard-Brexit than an arrangement which separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

There is either a General Election in the UK which removes the DUP from the equation or there is a hard-Brexit. It's as simple as that.

There is a reason the hard-Brexiteers have not taken out Theresa May. They know she is trapped by the DUP and cannot deliver a soft-Brexit.

lawred2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fascinating the difference in the comments sections when Tusk or Juncker say something that the Mail/Express people don't like as opposed to when Leo says something.
They don't get stereotypically derogatory towards the entire population of Luxembourg, or suggest threatening their military power against Poland. I understand it's partly that Leo is the serving PM whereas the other two are exPMs with different roles now, but there does seem to be a healthy dashing of anti-Irish racism in there.

all's fair in this brace new modern world - racism is healthy and you're only a precious snowflake if it bothers you

trellheim

The DUP will never, ever allow special customs arrangements for Northern Ireland.

Bear in mind they did allow special arrangements for many years post WW2

Leonard Hofstadter

trellheim wrote: »

Bear in mind they did allow special arrangements for many years post WW2

And continue to have segregated schools, a ban on abortion and a refusal to recognise equal marriage. They've no problem being different to the rest of the UK when it suits them.

Sierra Oscar

trellheim wrote: »

Bear in mind they did allow special arrangements for many years post WW2

The UUP were in power, the DUP weren't formed until 1971.

The UUP of old would probably have been far more pragmatic in today's situation - i.e. they would recognise that special arrangements for Northern Ireland are needed.

The DUP are extremists and unfortunately they have brought unionism with them to the extremes.

judeboy101

A by election can be triggered by 4000 signatures in north Antrim due to paisley suspension. He has a large majority but it fluctuates from 18k to 28k, if the other parties agreed on a compromise uup candidate who was pro eu the might squeeze him out. They could make it a "vote on brexit" in the unionist heartland.

Imreoir2

judeboy101 wrote: »

A by election can be triggered by 4000 signatures in north Antrim due to paisley suspension. He has a large majority but it fluctuates from 18k to 28k, if the other parties agreed on a compromise uup candidate who was pro eu the might squeeze him out. They could make it a "vote on brexit" in the unionist heartland.

They wont, the tribal politics are far to important for any such compromise.

murphaph

judeboy101 wrote: »

A by election can be triggered by 4000 signatures in north Antrim due to paisley suspension. He has a large majority but it fluctuates from 18k to 28k, if the other parties agreed on a compromise uup candidate who was pro eu the might squeeze him out. They could make it a "vote on brexit" in the unionist heartland.

The problem is that north Antrim is as far from the border as it gets in NI and many voters would actually be pro Brexit, possibly the majority but I am not in a position to check right now.

trellheim

They've no problem being different to the rest of the UK when it suits them.

Barnier knows this.

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

The problem is that north Antrim is as far from the border as it gets in NI and many voters would actually be pro Brexit, possibly the majority but I am not in a position to check right now.

If there was more to come about Ian's behaviour it might swing voters away.
I wonder if push came to shove would he actually stand again.

trellheim

Listening to May's speech is not encouraging.

swampgas

badtoro wrote: »

Think the failed state description is OTT, however the behavioural description is spot on. They are dealing in bad faith, publicly.

Agreed. Maybe a failed democracy would be a better description.