Brexit Discussion Thread VI

farmchoice

lawred2 wrote: »

put it in legislation that no deal is no longer the default option

as it stands - May and here cabal of loons can simply let the clock tick down to no deal

the only way to avoid a no deal scenario in the absence of an agreed WA is to either agree an extension with the EU or withdraw article 50, as an extension is not the UK's to simply get this is no good for legislation so it would have to mean that the ticking clock goes from ticking down to no deal to ticking down to revocation of article 50.

EdgeCase

It would be enormously helpful if Stormont actually functioned. The fact that the assembly is out of action and there's no Northern Ireland government has massively impacted this.

lawred2

farmchoice wrote: »

the only way to avoid a no deal scenario in the absence of an agreed WA is to either agree an extension with the EU or withdraw article 50, as an extension is not the UK's to simply get this is no good for legislation so it would have to mean that the ticking clock goes from ticking down to no deal to ticking down to revocation of article 50.

yeah but that's entirely the point

the majority of Parliament don't want the madness of No Deal and in the absence of a mutually agreed deal then either extend or revoke

Hurrache

In a way it's heartening to see much analysis and criticism of some elements of the English media's treatment of Irish government and dail representatives, particularly the BBC, over the last couple of weeks. There's been a few articles about it and many twitter threads.

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1089625761148010496


And our media given credit too, (I'm sure it doesn't include the Indo.)

IF Brexit has taught us anything, it’s that we need more Irish media in our lives. At a time when Westminster’s political commentators stagger around like punch-drunk bums trying to keep up with the chaotic strategies of a warring and fractured Conservative Party, some of the best and most incisive writing has come from Dublin.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17386843.irelands-media-is-a-vital-counter-to-london-based-brexit-bampottery/?ref=twtrec

ancapailldorcha

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

ArmaniJeanss

It says a lot that Dutchman Mark Rutte has a far better understanding of the UKs position than most UK politicians and commentators do.
And is able to articulate and argue it perfectly in what is presumably only his second or third language.

EdgeCase

I think that there's also a realisation in the EU of how patronising and aggressive an element of British politics is towards Ireland. I mean most people had heard about it but perhaps didn't think it was as blatant as it has been during this process.

It's really not helping the UK diplomatic effort.

Also some of the haranguing media interviews where continental politicians are basically just asked inane questions that make no sense and clearly have no understanding of the subject and are all about getting a reaction. See whag happened to Mark Rutte. That kind of media doesn't tend to exist much outside the UK. It's closer to heckling than interviewing.

None of this is helping the UK's case. It's just burning bridges and affirming stereotypes.

ancapailldorcha

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Dyr

Hurrache wrote: »

In a way it's heartening to see much analysis and criticism of some elements of the English media's treatment of Irish government and dail representatives, particularly the BBC, over the last couple of weeks. There's been a few articles about it and many twitter threads.

https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1089625761148010496


And our media given credit too, (I'm sure it doesn't include the Indo.)

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17386843.irelands-media-is-a-vital-counter-to-london-based-brexit-bampottery/?ref=twtrec

It's true to a degree that British Journalism has dropped it's standards

The thing about the Irish media on Brexit is they have no skin in the game when it comes to the UK, so they can be objective. UK journalists have contacts and relationships (and biases) with all the Westminister parties, those relationships are reciprocal and they're trying to maintain them. Aside from that they're too close to it all, they're part of the soap opera drama of Westminister. Just look at how much stock the BBC put on behind the scenes he-said-she-said gossip that's fed to them

We know what Irish journalism looks like on domestic issues, it's not that different. Spin doctors hold huge sway.

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

I think we are being to happy clappy with ourselves over here. We have had plenty of total failures in government. The 2008 crash being the clearest and most recent example. There are plenty of examples of failure in Ireland.

The fault with Brexit is not the parliament system, not the ref, not the parties. All these are certainly playing their part in exacerbating the problems, but are not the fundamental issue.

At the end of it all, the fault lies with weak politicians and a total lack of any leadership. A stronger PM, for example, would have laid out the realities to the country and HoC far earlier rather than try to trick the HoC, through a deadline, into voting her way.

An honest outlining of the real issues. The cost to people, the cost to jobs, the realities of global trade.

What is happening in the UK could easily happen anywhere, we have sen examples in the past. People become fed up and lose faith in the process and will grab onto to anything that promises to make things better (Trump in the US being another example). Its the lack of critical analysis that kills a democracy.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

Certainly. Even looking at the nature of the EU both at EU level and for the individual nations there's always compromise, negotiation, coalitions etc. All you have to do is look at how the EU is presented in Europe. It's one thing. Is it a friend? Well, no, it "tells us what to do". Therefore it must be an enemy. If it's not us it's an enemy. Irish politics can fall into a similar silly pattern at times but this whole debacle has shown we understand how working together can be mutually beneficial, perhaps from years of working within and with the EU.

Dyr

EdgeCase wrote: »

It would be enormously helpful if Stormont actually functioned. The fact that the assembly is out of action and there's no Northern Ireland government has massively impacted this.

Stormont is f***ed, the DUP's shenanigans mean a lot of Catholics don't see any point, there'll be no pressure on SF to get that show back on the road.

Hurrache

Bambi wrote: »

Just look at how much stock the BBC put on behind the scenes he-said-she-said gossip that's fed to them

Katya Adler of the BBC being one of the worse for this. She basically tweets any oul crap fed to her.

Leroy42

Hurrache wrote: »

Katya Adler of the BBC being one of the worse for this. She basically tweets any oul crap fed to her.

I agree, although on the last Brexitcast even she seemed to have turned a corner. She mentioned a number of times that the EU have no reason to change course, no reason to give on the backstop, that whilst the UK see this as a slight against them, the EU see it as sticking up for a member country on not overly concerned with the internal politics of a third country (as the UK will soon become).

She still doesn't appear to have completely got it but, IMO, there was a noticeable shift in her stance.

Laura, in comparison, is still working on the basis that the UK are in full control and once the HoC sorts itself out then everything will be solved.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I wonder if it's down to the adversarial nature of British politics.

In Ireland, perhaps a party leader can't get too vitriolic about another party in case they find themselves looking for coalition partners. I think regular coalitions and proportional voting make for a much more collaborative and empathetic environment. The House of Commons on the other hand can be won with less than 40% of the popular vote and was designed for Whigs and Tories to yell at each other. It even has too insufficient seating with this in mind.

Indeed. However, the Dáil has a situation that actually proves your point about Westminster. The only comparable divide in the Dáil is Mary Lou and Leo. As things stand, there is zero chance of FG and SF forming a coalition, and so their leaders are free to attack each other. Which they do regularly and quite viciously.

briany

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Pretty full-on, alright. I think UKIP are underestimating the amount of British folk who just want the whole thing done with one way or another. People only have so much heart for this kind of emotional language, and after two years of it, the British must be feeling wholly drained.

seamus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Using direct threats and coercion to influence people's votes?

Seems like there's probably a law or two against that...

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apparently, this has been doing the rounds in Sussex. UKIP might have been decimated but in the electoral wilderness they have become a much nastier beast it seems.

Frankly, I find this language highly disturbing:

Is there any chance that is photoshopped? It looks extreme, even for UKIP.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fault with Brexit is not the parliament system, not the ref, not the parties. All these are certainly playing their part in exacerbating the problems, but are not the fundamental issue.

It's certainly part of the problem. When you have a parliament that's almost one third made up of members who literaly cannot be voted out unless de-selected by their party, then that's a good chunk of democracy gone. And an electoral system that effectively sidelines minority parties to the extent that their national share of the vote barely translates into seats in parliament and you have a completely internally focused party system which pays scant attention to the wishes of the electorate, you have a pretty dysfunctional system. Don't forget that brexit is a direct result of an internal party squabble. It should never have arrived at a point that that squabble would translate into a narrowly lost advisory referendum and an end game that cannot but massively harm the economy for possibly decades. That's just bizarre.

otnomart

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

lawred2

otnomart wrote: »

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

ok Ms May - when do you expect the NI Executive and Assembly to reconvene?

Hurrache

Another view from someone influential on the BBC's apparent editorial decision on how to approach the backstop.
https://twitter.com/SimonFraser00/status/1089825562393223168

murphaph

otnomart wrote: »

"May is now planning to seek legally enforceable commitments from Brussels resurrecting paragraph 50 of the original backstop agreement"
"Paragraph 50 guarantees that the U.K. will ensure that no new regulatory barriers will develop between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, “unless, consistent with the 1998 [Good Friday] Agreement, [and] the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.”
Source: Politico https://www.politico.eu/article/mays-brexit-assault-will-target-backstops-threat-to-peace-dup-theresa-may-good-friday-agreement/

Isn't this the backstop on steroids? It would satisfy the DUP because they don't really care about Brexit but this is 100 times worse for the ERG types surely?

trellheim

Exact text of the joint report from December 2017 ( this is what moved the talks onwards to WA and resulted in the Backstop)

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

50. In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United
Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998
Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct
arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United
Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's
businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.

I should add that sneakily they are not mentioning Para 49

49. The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to
its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible
with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve
these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible,
the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique
circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United
Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the
Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the allisland economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.

Enzokk

murphaph wrote: »

Isn't this the backstop on steroids? It would satisfy the DUP because they don't really care about Brexit but this is 100 times worse for the ERG types surely?

It only says that the UK government will leave it up to NI whether they accept regulatory diversion from the whole of the UK. If they don't agree then surely it is up to the UK as a whole to accept the EU rules. It has nothing to do with the EU and all the responsibility is on the UK to maintain standards across the whole UK instead of allowing NI to have separate regulations.

prawnsambo

There's a different interpretation between the two versions if the [and] clause in otnomart's quote is included. That would make two separate conditions as opposed to the original that made one condition.

Leroy42

But doesn't Para 50 give all the control to NI?

In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom

So what if NI refuse to accept the new standards? Wouldn't that mean that the UK were legally obliged to adhere to whatever NI deemed appropriate.

Of course the UK can use their influence to get NI to change its mind, but it seems a huge amount of power to defer to NI.

And if this is the course that TM is going to go down, surely Scotland (Wales seem happy enough) will want to very same veto powers. Given that both NI and Scotland voted remain, you could easily see a situation where the UK agree a trade deal with the US, only for NI/Scotland to demand that no regulations change at all.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think we are being to happy clappy with ourselves over here. We have had plenty of total failures in government. The 2008 crash being the clearest and most recent example. There are plenty of examples of failure in Ireland.

The crash of '08.... I mean, I'd be hesitant to apportion too much blame to the government given how global it was. Only countries without heavily service-based economies like Australia and Germany escaped relatively unscathed.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The fault with Brexit is not the parliament system, not the ref, not the parties. All these are certainly playing their part in exacerbating the problems, but are not the fundamental issue.

At the end of it all, the fault lies with weak politicians and a total lack of any leadership. A stronger PM, for example, would have laid out the realities to the country and HoC far earlier rather than try to trick the HoC, through a deadline, into voting her way.

An honest outlining of the real issues. The cost to people, the cost to jobs, the realities of global trade.

There is no single cause of Brexit. However, I would cite the parliamentary system along with the voting system as prime contributors.

I think the electoral system benefits the incumbents hugely to the point where they can be led by such dysfunctional leaders like Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. I think if May had a stronger majority, she would cave on the backstop. However, she needs the DUP so she can't. Then again, she needs the ERG so she has to.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is happening in the UK could easily happen anywhere, we have sen examples in the past. People become fed up and lose faith in the process and will grab onto to anything that promises to make things better (Trump in the US being another example). Its the lack of critical analysis that kills a democracy.

Again, I disagree. Other countries have much more involved electoral systems. Look at the Irish referendum of last year. There was a process. Different groups were consulted like doctors, campaigners, activists, etc... Then the referendum was called with the government being crystal clear about what would happen if people voted for change. I saw a great post on Reddit about it but I can't for the life of me find it.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. However, the Dáil has a situation that actually proves your point about Westminster. The only comparable divide in the Dáil is Mary Lou and Leo. As things stand, there is zero chance of FG and SF forming a coalition, and so their leaders are free to attack each other. Which they do regularly and quite viciously.

Fair enough. I'm well out of touch on Irish politics.

seamus wrote: »

Using direct threats and coercion to influence people's votes?

Seems like there's probably a law or two against that...

I would hope so!

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Is there any chance that is photoshopped? It looks extreme, even for UKIP.

Certainly possible, PM. However, when you consider the positions that Gerard Batten has adopted along with them not just allowing but welcoming Tommy Robinson into the party then this isn't an unbelievable thing for them to do. Pinch of salt, obviously but it fits the new sort of nasty, right wing identity politics they've degenerated into. Farage always emphasized sovereignty and free trade. Even when he disparaged immigration, he focused on things like communities and public services. Batten has taken UKIP into territory that Farage always strove to avoid at all costs.

AtomicHorror

The European Medicines Agency closed up their Canary Wharf HQ on Friday after 24 years in London. That's 900 jobs to be relocated or re-staffed, not to mention knock-on effects as pharma companies re-allocate their regulatory-facing staff, some of whom will no longer be able to legally operate in the UK from April.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/26/european-medicines-agency-closes-london-office-with-loss-of-900-jobs-brexit

The Guardian seems to be the only UK paper to have covered it. Maybe the scale of it doesn't register over there. In Ireland, I'd expect those kinds of job losses would be widely reported.

Folkstonian

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

UK didn't have to ask EU to hold "independence" referendum and just had to lodge a50 letter. Now compare that to Scotland, see subservience

Because Scotland is a constituent country of a greater sovereign state, whilst the EU is, for now, an association of sovereign states.

Surely even the most ardent Scottish separatist (is this what you are?) would see why the process is different?

Scotland voted in a nationalist government, which in turn requested a referendum on independence. Which was then freely, fairly, and peacefully contested. And lost.

If they want another vote, they are absolutely welcome to it.

You can pile on the British government and the wider political system over Brexit all you want, but I think it is absolutely absurd that you would attempt to disparage and discredit the manner in which that particular episode was dealt with.

Yes, England and Scotland are separate countries. But the union has been, until the last few years, a phenomenal success. Efforts like yours seem to be just a subtly snide attempt to gloss over its unprecedented accomplishments