Brexit Discussion Thread VI

EdgeCase

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've said before that SF should take their seats in Westminster as there will never be a chance like this again to have a major say in proceedings-as it is the DUP proping up TM could be the reason for a hard brexit.

Unless Westminster dropped the need to swear an oath to the Queen and acknowledge them as having a legitimate right to politically achieve a United Ireland, that's about as likely to happen as JRM becoming a European Commissioner.

They also do not recognise the legitimacy of Westminster in Northern Ireland.

In all seriousness, they are simply not going to say :

Text of Oath of Allegiance wrote:

I (name). do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

tuxy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Basically, narrow self interest won the day. Were SF to be seen to have the balance of power you can be sure that many would cross the floor just to avoid having them have any actual impact.

No one would have to cross the floor because the DUP have more seats than SF

gooch2k9

I'm just reading a BBC article about what the DUP wants out of all this(link). The first line states they voted with the government and upheld their side of the S&C agreement. Surely the vote against the WA broke the terms of this agreement? The agreement itself states they will vote with the government on votes concerning the exit from the EU.

Leroy42

tuxy wrote: »

No one would have to cross the floor because the DUP have more seats than SF

Well, TM won the NC motion by 1 vote, so if the 7 SF had been there then they would have. I my point is that in such a scenario, 7 Labour or LibDems would have as they can't have SF make the difference.

So all this talk of SF is moot, IMO.

At the end of the day, what is very clear from this whole process, is that TM, the ERG, the Tories, Labour and others are not listening or taking any advice from outside their own narrow camp.

Even now, TM is looking to discuss cross party, on the basis that all her positions remain and will not change! So this mess was always gong to happen

EdgeCase

The talk of SF taking their seats is absolute nonsense. It's just not going to happen.

There are the numbers there if you could get the Tory Centre, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP and enough labour centrists.

Personally, I think they're all too entrenched. It's not going to go anywhere.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, TM won the NC motion by 1 vote, so if the 7 SF had been there then they would have. I my point is that in such a scenario, 7 Labour or LibDems would have as they can't have SF make the difference.

Think she won it by 19



As the DUP pointed out in their ransom note, if they hadn't voted with her, she'd be gone.

tuxy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, TM won the NC motion by 1 vote, so if the 7 SF had been there then they would have. I my point is that in such a scenario, 7 Labour or LibDems would have as they can't have SF make the difference.

So all this talk of SF is moot, IMO.

The no confidence vote in TM last year was just for the Tory party. No other party could vote in that.

The vote of no confidence in the Government on Tuesday had a 19 vote majority.

FreudianSlippers

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'm just reading a BBC article about what the DUP wants out of all this(link). The first line states they voted with the government and upheld their side of the S&C agreement. Surely the vote against the WA broke the terms of this agreement? The agreement itself states they will vote with the government on votes concerning the exit from the EU.

The DUP want a hard border - there's really no getting around that. The only way the DUP gets what they want without a hard border is to remain in the EU.

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Think she won it by 19

tuxy wrote: »

The no confidence vote in TM last year was just for the Tory party. No other party could vote in that.

The vote of no confidence in the Government on Tuesday had a 19 vote majority.

Both absolutely right, I made a right mare of that.

tuxy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Both absolutely right, I made a right mare of that.

No worries, the most interesting and sad thing about the vote was that the motion would have passed by 1 vote if the DUP voted the other way(of course they never would)
Now the DUP are very smug about how much power they have and it shows in their ridiculous statements.

Bit cynical

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No they couldn't have. You can't make deals with a current member.
How could a trade deal be agreed when the UK didn't and still doesn't know what kind of relationship it wants to have with the EU?
How will NI be treated in any trade deal?

I know the talks recently concluded were labelled the divorce talks but in reality many areas of a future relationship were discussed. The backstop, for example, refers to a future relationship between the UK and the EU.

No reason why trade should not have been discussed also. Had some progress been made on trade other areas of discussion might have been easier.

Splitting of the talks into two parts, the first of which must conclude with agreement before the next starts was arbitrary and artificial.

What meetings were held without the UK being offered an invite?

Pretty sure meetings were held fairly early on among the EU27 to determine the EU's position in negotiations.

Tell me how

tuxy wrote: »

No worries, the most interesting and sad thing about the vote was that the motion would have passed by 1 vote if the DUP voted the other way(of course they never would)
Now the DUP are very smug about how much power they have and it shows in their ridiculous statements.

I wonder how are their ministers treated in the halls and canteen of West Minister when others run in to them.

I suspect many know that they are in the position they are in in solely because of how the chips fell in the last GE and that they are not even representing the majority in their country.

Still, I don't suspect it bothers them. Wilson, Dodds, Paisley, have thick skins.

gmisk

Tell me how wrote: »

I wonder how are their ministers treated in the halls and canteen of West Minister when others run in to them.

I suspect many know that they are in the position they are in in solely because of how the chips fell in the last GE and that they are not even representing the majority in their country.

Still, I don't suspect it bothers them. Wilson, Dodds, Paisley, have thick skins.

Chips from a canteen there since the the last GE madness.....though Arlene does has very broad shoulders.


I can tell you now as someone from Norn Iron they will not give a single toss, in fact they will wear it as a badge of honour and it will likely play well to their voting base.
"We showed it to them in westminister yeeeeoh"

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

I know the talks recently concluded were labelled the divorce talks but in reality many areas of a future relationship were discussed. The backstop, for example, refers to a future relationship between the UK and the EU.

No reason why trade should not have been discussed also. Had some progress been made on trade other areas of discussion might have been easier.

Splitting of the talks into two parts, the first of which must conclude with agreement before the next starts was arbitrary and artificial.

Pretty sure meetings were held fairly early on among the EU27 to determine the EU's position in negotiations.

No, the backstop is a fall-back position past 2020 (is it still 2020?) if a trade deal cannot be reached. It's not really correct to call it a discussion of a "future relationship"

Tell me how

gmisk wrote: »

I can tell you now as someone from Norn Iron they will not give a single toss, in fact they will wear it as a badge of honour and it will likely play well to their voting base.
"We showed it to them in westminister yeeeeoh"

It most definitely will, but that is an ever-decreasing base.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, the backstop is a fall-back position past 2020 (is it still 2020?) if a trade deal cannot be reached. It's not really correct to call it a discussion of a "future relationship"

I think it is correct. It refers to a relationship/obligation that extends into the future (2020 and beyond).


We only say it is not a future relationship because it is not part of the official "Future Relationship" talks. But like I say, this division is arbitrary and artificial.

Macy0161

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The only way the DUP gets what they want without a hard border is to remain in the EU.

Or customs union and single market - EEA/ EEA-EFTA/ Single Market/ "Norway Plus"

wiggle16

Tell me how wrote: »

I wonder how are their ministers treated in the halls and canteen of West Minister when others run in to them.

I suspect many know that they are in the position they are in in solely because of how the chips fell in the last GE and that they are not even representing the majority in their country.

Still, I don't suspect it bothers them. Wilson, Dodds, Paisley, have thick skins.

And even thicker skulls.

The DUP is motivated solely by ideology, against the interests of the people they represent - and as you say, that's not even the majority of people in NI. No amount of logic or reason will change their outlook on things. May taking them on was one of her biggest blunders by far, it shut off way too many issues from negotiation.

Their fear of NI's "Britishness" being eroded runs extremely deep for the DUP and their bedfellows. The traditionally Unionist segment of the population is in demographic decline compared to the Nationalist and non-partisan communities. They see this as an existential threat and therefore don't want any change of the current status quo in NI at all and if that means annihilating its economy they'll just close their eyes really tight as they get closer to the cliff's edge.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is correct. It refers to a relationship/obligation that extends into the future (2020 and beyond).


We only say it is not a future relationship because it is not part of the official "Future Relationship" talks. But like I say, this division is arbitrary and artificial.

Irrelevant - the EU cannot, should not and will not negotiate a trade deal with a Member State of the EU. It's silly to even talk about it.

FreudianSlippers

Macy0161 wrote: »

Or customs union and single market - EEA/ EEA-EFTA/ Single Market/ "Norway Plus"

None of which are really in the spirit of Brexit when it boils down to it. Unless the UK secretly really wants to be a rule-taker from the EU, but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irrelevant - the EU cannot, should not and will not negotiate a trade deal with a Member State of the EU. It's silly to even talk about it.

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.


It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

Macy0161

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

It's not what some people who voted for brexit voted for. There's no definitive, which is what is reflected in the UK Parliament. It ranges from No Deal to EEA-EFTA and everything inbetween. The single option with the biggest mandate has always been remain!

Bit cynical

Macy0161 wrote: »

The single option with the biggest mandate has always been remain!

However there is the small matter of a referendum that was held in the UK in 2016. No leader wants to be the one to repudiate that.

intellectual dosser

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.


It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

The EU would run the risk of countries seeing what things would look like if they left the EU. It would also potentially create unnecessary tensions and distractions between an EU member and the EU itself while discussions were ongoing. I think its a necessary policy.

Macy0161

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there is the small matter of a referendum that was held in the UK in 2016.

But quote the rest of what I said! 52% didn't vote for crashing out. Even "no deal" can be split between cliff edge and managed exit. The UK Parliament is actually quite reflective - no majority for a single exit route, significant remain minority...

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

None of which are really in the spirit of Brexit when it boils down to it. Unless the UK secretly really wants to be a rule-taker from the EU, but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Some voted for £350 million a week for the NHS - which was a total lie. Some voted to take back sovereignty - but could not explain what particular laws they did not like (not the abolition of roaming charges or credit card charges - they are quite good).

Some voted to take back control of their borders - but are now willing to leave the only border with the EU open.

Some voted leave just because they do not like foreigners - particularly brown ones.

A few might have voted so they could do wonderful trade deals with the rest of the world, and trade under WTO rules - whatever they are. Of course, it would mean turning their back on their largest market and losing over 40 FTA the EU have already done. It might be easier to do trade deals if they had any experience or expertise in trade negotiations.

But they will get blue passports (printed in France).

ToBeFrank123

wiggle16 wrote: »

And even thicker skulls.

The DUP is motivated solely by ideology, against the interests of the people they represent - and as you say, that's not even the majority of people in NI. No amount of logic or reason will change their outlook on things. May taking them on was one of her biggest blunders by far, it shut off way too many issues from negotiation.

Their fear of NI's "Britishness" being eroded runs extremely deep for the DUP and their bedfellows. The traditionally Unionist segment of the population is in demographic decline compared to the Nationalist and non-partisan communities. They see this as an existential threat and therefore don't want any change of the current status quo in NI at all and if that means annihilating its economy they'll just close their eyes really tight as they get closer to the cliff's edge.

Agreed.

Foster has achieved two feats in her short career as leader of DUP - Brought about the indefinite suspension of the Stormont Assembly in her efforts to cling to power. And it looks like she will create a hard border with the south. That's not to mention the disastrous cash for ash scheme she pioneered.

Bit cynical

Macy0161 wrote: »

But quote the rest of what I said! 52% didn't vote for crashing out. Even "no deal" can be split between cliff edge and managed exit.

Sorry, I edited my post a bit after that. Whilst there may be a majority now against Brexit in its current form, a leader of a political party does not want to be the one to go against the 2016 result. I'm sure Corbyn would love TM to back out of Brexit and vice versa but he himself does not and neither does she. The impact of the 2016 referendum is still strong.

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.


It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

Well, in the opinion of the currently 28 Member States of the EU and the fundamental underpinning of all EU trade negotiations.

Note even the UK isn't asking for what you're suggesting as they know it's ridiculous.

Bit cynical

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The EU would run the risk of countries seeing what things would look like if they left the EU.

Can you elaborate a little on this please? What would this risk be? What would the countries see?