Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Infini

Adamcp898 wrote: »

No. The problem (not the only, just the major one) with what you've just outlined is that it would be an extremely antagonistic way to try and force a United Ireland and could lead to huge amount of unrest and violence.

There could be civil unrest and violence anyways if a Hard Brexit occurs. Remember one thing: When you take away things from people weather its their legal rights, their funding, their economic prospects and so forth people in general tend to react poorly. Northern Ireland is going to get hammered in a no deal Brexit scenario and the DUP are one of the KEY primary culprits in all this. Their own party has refused to bring about restoration of Stormount for example, I know we could turn around and blame Sinn Fein as well but the DUP is in a position of power in Westminster and it suits them perfectly fine to keep it shut while at the same time spout on they represent all of NI when in fact they only represent their own interest which is ironically the opposite of NI who voted 56% to remain. It's pure opportunism on their part.

The problem is at some point people need to stop putting up with this carry on and start confronting them and their blatant lies. They talk about their union but their actions and their inability to grasp simple logic means they put their own self interests at risk. A United Ireland was decades away before Brexit and their actions by supporting Brexit a policy utterly self destructive to their own interests now means this could be a reality WITHIN a decade. It's that kind of illogical stupidity that shows you what kind of people you dealing with in that party. Lets also not forget about all those people who voted to remain as well as those unionist's buisnesses and farmers and such who are being thrown under the bus over this, a United Ireland isnt the perfect solution but right now it gives them an out from a British Government that is about to go down as the most incompetent and reckless in modern history.

Bambi wrote: »

Nope, Any change to the status of NI has to be with the consent of the NI electorate

I'm okay with that, you seem not be

To be honest the people of Northern Ireland didn't consent to actually leave the EU in fairness that was primarily England. Let's not forget a Hard Brexit scenario has polled a strong likelyhood of Public Support shifting SIGNIFICANTLY towards a United Ireland under a hard brexit scenario. This is the whole thing about a hard brexit: Scotland could push to secede as well over this and they would be hard pressed to deny NI that oppertunity as well.

J Mysterio

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I doubt that the DUP would go for it, but if N.I. became an independent nation and was allowed to remain in the EU, they could also remain in the commonwealth and have a trade deal with Great Britain - problem solved?

(I mean obviously not, but just spit-balling)

The DUP were offered NI in the EU single market while remaining part of UK and having full access to UK also. The last thing they want is Independence.

This whole thing is about their not wanting to be seperate from the UK in amy way (other than all the backward ways that suit them).

demfad

J Mysterio wrote: »

Newton Emerson coming up in Newstalk to tell us why 'the backstop backfired on Ireland'.

Here is a link to the Withdrawal agreement.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

ARTICLE 1

Objectives and relationship to subsequent agreement

1. This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people.

2. This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.

3. This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions.

4. The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in part, by a subsequent agreement

As we can see from point 3: North South Cooperation AND a hard border is avoided AND the GFA are protected.

Emerson's argument is that the UK could impose a hard Brexit and not be in technical legal breach of the GFA and that the Irish are "mistaken" for believing this to be so. But the EU/UK/Irish don't suggest this: they define the backstop and it is defined in terms of THREE areas of protection only ONE of which is specifically described as being the GFA.

Note point 4. " Article 2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in part, by a subsequent agreement"

And this from point 3: "protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions".

This means that the GFA is protected in all it's dimensions.
Not just in regard to the EU-UK future relationship but in regard to ANYTHING.
The GFA wont be harmed now, in the near future or at any point at all in the future until and if this part of the Protocol is replaced.
This is a de facto permanent protection of the GFA against Brexit or ANY OTHER danger in the future. Newton doesn't get this.

(This is why David Allen Greene of the FT said that the GFA now repalces the Magna Carta in importance for the UK.)

Havockk

J Mysterio wrote: »

The DUP were offered NI in the EU single market while remaining part of UK and having full access to UK also. The last thing they want is Independence.

This whole thing is about their not wanting to be seperate from the UK in amy way (other than all the backward ways that suit them).

I kind of disagree here. The DUP have always had the strand of 'Ulster Nationalism'. They could be swung for an independent state I believe however, as mentioned earlier I doubt many nationalists would ever go for that.

Adamcp898

Bambi wrote: »

Nope, Any change to the status of NI has to be with the consent of the NI electorate

I'm okay with that, you seem not be

This is what you said:

Bambi wrote: »

The problem with Northern Ireland is we've always been willing to let a minority have their way for fear of them wrecking the place otherwise.


That nettle has to be grasped at some stage

Then this:

Bambi wrote: »

Nope, it's the minority that led to the creation of NI in the first place, we've seen various Irish politicians telling us that a 51% majority for a UI in a border poll is not enough. It's always coming back to keeping a subset of unionism from going Balubas a la Sunningdale.

You're advocating the merging of NI with the RoI against the current unionist majority. Hardly anything as noble as respecting the "consent of the NI electorate".


And I haven't expressed any opinion other than that it's generally a bad idea to force anything on anyone, something which I thought would be fairly obvious, so I'm not sure what I'm meant to be "not okay" with either.

Emphasis mine.

Adamcp898

Infini wrote: »

There could be civil unrest and violence anyways if a Hard Brexit occurs. Remember one thing: When you take away things from people weather its their legal rights, their funding, their economic prospects and so forth people in general tend to react poorly. Northern Ireland is going to get hammered in a no deal Brexit scenario and the DUP are one of the KEY primary culprits in all this. Their own party has refused to bring about restoration of Stormount for example, I know we could turn around and blame Sinn Fein as well but the DUP is in a position of power in Westminster and it suits them perfectly fine to keep it shut while at the same time spout on they represent all of NI when in fact they only represent their own interest which is ironically the opposite of NI who voted 56% to remain. It's pure opportunism on their part.

The problem is at some point people need to stop putting up with this carry on and start confronting them and their blatant lies. They talk about their union but their actions and their inability to grasp simple logic means they put their own self interests at risk. A United Ireland was decades away before Brexit and their actions by supporting Brexit a policy utterly self destructive to their own interests now means this could be a reality WITHIN a decade. It's that kind of illogical stupidity that shows you what kind of people you dealing with in that party. Lets also not forget about all those people who voted to remain as well as those unionist's buisnesses and farmers and such who are being thrown under the bus over this, a United Ireland isnt the perfect solution but right now it gives them an out from a British Government that is about to go down as the most incompetent and reckless in modern history.

I think you're making the assumption though that enough people want to be a member of the EU more than they want to be a member of the United Kingdom.

An assumption that I'd be very wary of given how quickly we've watched the North become polarised again in the past two years after years and years of slowly moving towards a middle ground.

demfad

Panrich wrote: »

This is very funny

https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1086264773149380608

The "B" in "JCB" refers to Bamford.

Ferry company with no Ferries connection:

Seabourne Freight shares the same registered Address, 59 Mansell Street, as the Maritime Law firm Campbell Johnson Clark whose Director is called Mark Bamford, ...Sir Antony Bamford of JCB is a huge Tory party donor, his brother is called Mark

https://dwpexamination.org/forum/newsreel/the-corruption-behind-the-tory-freight-deal-with-a-shipping-company-that-has-no-ships/

Calina

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I doubt that the DUP would go for it, but if N.I. became an independent nation and was allowed to remain in the EU, they could also remain in the commonwealth and have a trade deal with Great Britain - problem solved?

(I mean obviously not, but just spit-balling)

No, if they are part of the EU as an EU member state they don't get to sign their own trade deals with GB.

demfad

Adamcp898 wrote: »

You're advocating the merging of NI with the RoI against the current unionist majority. Hardly anything as noble as respecting the "consent of the NI electorate".

I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority.

If you mean a "Protestant" majority or that ethnic group then that's different.
My own view is that a border poll would be best instigated when a significant minority of the pro-UI vote are likely to be from this group.

Looking for a "majority" of this group as a threshold would only encourage the DUP to continue sectarian politics knowing it only needs to keep it's "own" in tow.

The best argument for keeping NI should be that Citizens have a better life there.

The recent referendums in the ROI have no doubt caused cracks in support for the DUP. They cannot rely on National loyalty when many Liberal Protestants may have so much more in common with the social realities down south.

If half of Protestants are required to vote for a UI the DUP can keep enough through fear. If only a significant minority are needed then you will see a liberalising NI needed to preserve the Union. That can't be bad?

Infini

Adamcp898 wrote: »

I think you're making the assumption though that enough people want to be a member of the EU more than they want to be a member of the United Kingdom.

An assumption that I'd be very wary of given how quickly we've watched the North become polarised again in the past two years after years and years of slowly moving towards a middle ground.

56% of NI voted to remain. Id's say that's more than assumption you know.

demfad wrote: »

I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority.

Problem is that were seeing the opposite: The region being taken out of the EU against the will of the Majority here. Same as in Scotland. That's what's pushing the United Ireland agenda to begin with.

Adamcp898

demfad wrote: »

I am not suggesting there should be a poll. Just to point out that if a border poll succeeds it would by definition mean that only a minority wanted to maintain the Union with GB. In other words there cannot be a UI under the GFA against a Unionist majority.

If you mean a "Protestant" majority or that ethnic group then that's different.
My own view is that a border poll would be best instigated when a significant minority of the pro-UI vote are likely to be from this group.

Looking for a "majority" of this group as a threshold would only encourage the DUP to continue sectarian politics knowing it only needs to keep it's "own" in tow.

The best argument for keeping NI should be that Citizens have a better life there.

The recent referendums in the ROI have no doubt caused cracks in support for the DUP. They cannot rely on National loyalty when many Liberal Protestants may have so much more in common with the social realities down south.

If half of Protestants are required to vote for a UI the DUP can keep enough through fear. If only a significant minority are needed then you will see a liberalising NI needed to preserve the Union. That can't be bad?

As I said a few posts ago, I've no interest in a debating the merits of a united Ireland in this thread. The only reason I replied at all in the post that you've quoted here is because the poster was either confused by the point I made or was twisting the meaning of it to their own end.

But you're right, some of the reasons you listed above are exactly the reason why there should never be a border poll simply because the perceived nationalist majority ticks over to 51%, something which the same poster is advocating. It would only serve to further polarise a highly polarisable situation.

Adamcp898

Infini wrote: »

56% of NI voted to remain. Id's say that's more than assumption you know.

No, you're assuming that the 56% also would choose being a member of the EU over being part of the UK. That's the dangerous assumption to make.

Infini

Adamcp898 wrote: »

No, you're assuming that the 56% also would choose being a member of the EU over being part of the UK. That's the dangerous assumption to make.

Is it? The whole problem is that we simply do not know at this point in time HOW badly Brexit and expecially a hard Brexit will play out. We simply do not know for definate how badly this will affect people but we've seen projections of Depression Level conditions for NI in the event of a No Deal Brexit. All caused by Tory and DUP incompetence. That can make alot of people reevaluate things when they see prosperity and stable government on the rest of the island.

Adamcp898 wrote: »

But you're right, some of the seasons you listed above are exactly the reason why there should never be a border poll simply because the perceived nationalist majority ticks over to 51%, something which the same poster is advocating above. It would only serve to further polarise a highly polarisable situation.

The problem is that the British Government should have thought of this before pursuing such a reckless and stupid Brexit agenda to begin with though. The only way this whole issue gets put back in hibernation is the total abandonment of Brexit as this is the whole reason this problem was caused to begin with.

Sam Russell

My understanding is that a customs union (THE Customs Union) would not be sufficient for frictionless movement of trade at Dover - they would still need Single Market as well. Is that correct?

Also, the current WA allows for any trade deal - Canada +++ or Norway +++, or any other +++ that they can think of during the trade negotiations. However, NI must remain in the CU and SM as far as it affects the GFA, all island economy, etc. Is this correct?

If both are correct, the WA should be agreed or Art 50 should be revoked. A crash-out is just nuts. The WA is a one size fits all.

briany

Infini wrote: »

The problem is that the British Government should have thought of this before pursuing such a reckless and stupid Brexit agenda to begin with though. The only way this whole issue gets put back in hibernation is the total abandonment of Brexit as this is the whole reason this problem was caused to begin with.

Brexit is only a symptom of general dissatisfaction among UK voters. If you remove Brexit now, but you don't allay the concerns that were (rightly or wrongly) blamed on the UK's EU membership, then all you're really doing is kicking the can down the road, and hoping to god you won't be the one to pick it back up.

Frank Bullitt

This is Monty Python scale stuff, listen to the cheer at around the 3 min remark when the blonde one says that May should walk away.

Or the guy at the 2 min mark who thinks No Deal scare the EU into coming back to the table...

ancapailldorcha

As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit.

It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.

Frank Bullitt

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit.

It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.

They were almost frothing at the mouth at the idea of a No-Deal.

Honestly, the only reason I can think that they would want this, is because they don't know EXACTLY what it will do to them.

QT in a few months will be a really fascinating watch.

ancapailldorcha

Gintonious wrote: »

They were almost frothing at the mouth at the idea of a No-Deal.

Honestly, the only reason I can think that they would want this, is because they don't know EXACTLY what it will do to them.

QT in a few months will be a really fascinating watch.

I was an avid watcher for years until I grew fed up of the same arguments and soundbytes. Not even that I suppose, but rather the lack of change beyond a few rhetorical tweaks and adjustments over the years. Britain is having a row not with the EU but with itself.

There's a cracking article in the Guardian today by Fintan O'Toole who argues that Brexit is about the continuing fragmentation of the United Kingdom which has manifested itself in Brexit:

For all of this is the afterlife of dead things. One of them is Brexit itself. When did Brextinction occur? On 24 June 2016. The project was driven by decades of camped-up mendacity about the tyranny of the EU, and sold in the referendum as a fantasy of national liberation. It simply could not survive contact with reality. It died the moment it became real. You cannot free yourself from imaginary oppression. Even if May were a political genius – and let us concede that she is not – Brexit was always going to come down to a choice between two evils: the heroic but catastrophic failure of crashing out; or the unheroic but less damaging failure of swapping first-class for second-class EU membership. These are the real afterlives of a departed reverie.

If the choice between shooting oneself in the head or in the foot is the answer to Britain’s long-term problems, surely the wrong question is being asked. It is becoming ever clearer that Brexit is not about its ostensible subject: Britain’s relationship with the EU. The very word Brexit contains a literally unspoken truth. It does not include or even allude to Europe. It is British exit that is the point, not what it is exiting from. The tautologous slogan Leave Means Leave is similarly (if unintentionally) honest: the meaning is in the leaving, not in what is being left or how.....

It may seem strange to call this slow collapse invisible since so much of it is obvious: the deep uncertainties about the union after the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament the following year; the consequent rise of English nationalism; the profound regional inequalities within England itself; the generational divergence of values and aspirations; the undermining of the welfare state and its promise of shared citizenship; the contempt for the poor and vulnerable expressed through austerity; the rise of a sensationally self-indulgent and clownish ruling class. But the collective effects of these interrelated developments do seem to have been barely visible within the political mainstream until David Cameron accidentally took the lid off by calling a referendum and asking people to endorse the status quo.

I think he's bang on with his assessment here. In the short term, Brexit needs to be cancelled but the underlying causes must also be dealt with.

Sam Russell

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit.

It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.

Or even Airbus or Rolls Royce will be that bothered if they have to close up shop and leave town for the EU.

And the BoJo was denying (pure lies) today about not using Turkeys in his pre-referendum campaign. Well here they are - cheering for Christmas.

Havockk

Gintonious wrote: »

This is Monty Python scale stuff, listen to the cheer at around the 3 min remark when the blonde one says that May should walk away.

Or the guy at the 2 min mark who thinks No Deal scare the EU into coming back to the table...

There is a bewildering level of ignorance in the UK right now. I mean, this is stuff that shouldn't even need to be rebutted but it goes out on national television on the flagship politics program?

Havockk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit.

It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.

How do you see that playing out? Once the realisation hits?

mrbrianj

Gintonious wrote: »

This is Monty Python scale stuff, listen to the cheer at around the 3 min remark when the blonde one says that May should walk away.

Or the guy at the 2 min mark who thinks No Deal scare the EU into coming back to the table...

You'd have to laugh at the 'German cars' line - do they realise that the UK sell just as many back into the EU?

They wont listen to their own car manufacturers so why should Merkel listen to hers?

Seth Brundle

mrbrianj wrote: »

You'd have to laugh at the 'German cars' line - do they realise that the UK sell just as many back into the EU?

They wont listen to their own car manufacturers so why should Merkel listen to hers?

I reckon the German manufacturers know that the UK people will still buy cars from Germany.

A Dub in Glasgo

It seems to be me in work talking about Brexit and the risk this brings, one of the other guys shrugs his shoulders and says what will be will be .... I suppose he has a point to an extent as we have little influence on the farce that is being played out before our eyes.

Professor Moriarty

Even if they decide to remain, Britain has done huge damage to itself. Its politicians and political structures have been exposed as deeply flawed. Its citizens seem to be unaware of many facts or simply don't care. Its press has shown itself to be breathtakingly biased. The political rhetoric throughout the past two years has been deeply insulting to its closest neighbours. Their behaviour when negotiating has been a mixture of arrogance and ignorance. They have lost thousands of jobs that won't be coming back.

Most problematic, and this doesn't seem to register, any manufacturer or service provider would be quite mad to invest in Britain. There is always the strong possibility over the next few years, until negotiations are fully concluded, that they could crash out at the whim of a Brexiteer Tory PM - such a Tory leader will probably take over from May. Equally, even if they stay or opt for a soft Brexit, Euroscepticism will never go away and will always be tugging away at the threads trying to unravel Britain's relationship with the EU.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

As an aside, Isabel Oakeshott ghostwote Arron Banks' Bad Boys of Brexit.

It's rather terrifying that residents of a post-industrial city like Derby would be so fervent about the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. They seem to genuinely think that the disaster capitalists are concerned with their well-being.

She was also aware of Banks having multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador to the UK and not one meeting as the book maintained. Withholding this information was extremely helpful to Banks and anyone else in this group (Wigmore, Farage) who may have been acting the maggot with Russians/US billionaires to deliver Brexit.

For Forks Sake

demfad wrote: »

She was also aware of Banks having multiple meetings with the Russian ambassador to the UK and not one meeting as the book maintained. Withholding this information was extremely helpful to Banks and anyone else in this group (Wigmore, Farage) who may have been acting the maggot with Russians/US billionaires to deliver Brexit.

More on that here.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-a-journalist-kept-russias-secret-links-to-brexit-under-wraps

ancapailldorcha

Havockk wrote: »

How do you see that playing out? Once the realisation hits?

The working classes suffer more, those who are mobile amongst whom I am sufficiently fortunate to count myself by virtue of my being Irish will leave the country in larger numbers than at present while the Jacob Rees-Moggs of the country enrich themselves with Project Singapore-on-Thames. All the while the media will be desperately looking for scapegoats. If people equate Brexit with greater sovereignty, Murdoch, Desmond, the Barclays and Rothermere might find their margins taking a hit.

flutered

VinLieger wrote: »

Hurrache wrote: »

May and her ministers apparently are set to block Bercow's peerage, the first time in 230 years, as a punishment for what they see as his bias during the Brexit debate.

How incredibly petty of them

now very trump like of them