Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

Nationalists did not create this situation. Nationalists signed up to the GFA and have observed it (mostly) since it's inception. There are guarantees in that agreement that are being broken as well as rights ignored.

Unionists wish to exit the EU and the agreement (if that is in the way) so it is up to them to take the discomforts here. And it is an 'abstract' discomfort only. Trade with the UK can continue if there is willingness on both sides (mainland Britain and northern Ireland).
There is therefore no impediment to this solution only mindsets. and feelings.

There are physical and tangible impediments to any other solution.

intellectual dosser

I don't think there would be much change in the seat allocation in NI, but I find it curious that Sammy Wilson points to the DUP's increased margins in the last general election as a mandate to pursue Brexit on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. If the DUP were to keep seats but lose votes would it soften their bark? Likely not a bit.

Professor Moriarty

cml387 wrote: »

Yes, it includes NI. And yes, DUP could lose (or gain) seats.

Given a choice between Remain, Crash Out or May's Deal, 62% of people in the North would vote Remain today. This up from 56% in the referendum. So the more the DUP frustrates a growing Remain vote the more they will lose support.

This is reflected in a November poll where, compared to the GE in 2017, the DUP dropped from 36% to 31% while the UUP went from 10% to 15%.

cml387

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

Here we have the crux of the matter.^^

Downcow, what you must understand is that all the ROI wants (at least the majority) is to continue the situation as it was before 2016. You keep red phone boxes and Union Flag, there is lots of cross border trade, the only thing you see crossing the border is a change of road surface and different road signs.

The referendum result has taken all that away. It's as if a drunk tried the trick of removing the tablecloth with the table set and created a tremendous mess.
And it's none of our doing down south

Now we have all these accusations thrown back and forth and tensions mounting. A situation where the taoiseach and the PM are barely on speaking terms.

That we have gone backwards so quickly in a few years, well it makes me weep.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

Rubbish. You have the "big prize" as a unionist. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. It differs in laws and regulations already in many respects so being in the UK does not mean being as British as Finchley. Nationalists accepted NI's place in the UK on condition that the border would be made irrelevant by single market membership of both sides of it.

You simply don't want to accept that there is any price to pay for Brexit.

Hurrache

josip wrote: »

I'm not sure how to put this, but perhaps the use of terms such as 'ignorance' and 'madness' when referring to another's point of view would do it, even if that wasn't your intention?

The decision to say you are being swayed towards favouring Brexit after everything that has happened and with all the info being readily available is ignorance and madness. The poster claimed they were previously neutral and are now saying they're becoming pro Brexit because people are pointing out fallacy.

Sometimes things just are what they are.

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Probably not. Apologies. But it would be helpful if all sides considered how they could assist the other and recognised own faults.

I think you'll have to give instances where the EU has failed to assist the UK's own program of exit and which faults the EU should be recognizing of itself?

I may be blinkered a little so not seeing what it is you are referring to...

As far as I see it - the EU clearly communicated from an early stage what the key aspects of the WA had to be. The UK agreed to that.

The UK decides that what was agreed was not agreed and was never agreed and that all was still up for negotiation.

EU said "well what was agreed was agreed but let's discuss further"

EU and UK painstakingly agree on Chequers

UK dumps Chequers

The UK again decides that what was agreed was not agreed and was never agreed and that all was still up for negotiation.

EU said "well what was agreed was agreed but let's discuss further"

We get another deal - May Mk2

May pulls the vote and the UK once again decides that what was agreed was not agreed and was never agreed and that all was still up for negotiation.

EU said "well what was agreed was agreed and we're out of road"

Seems to me that the EU has been very supportive of a UK government that has no agreed position, vision or plan for Brexit. While all the while having to endure megaphone diplomacy denigrating EU politicians and EU states.

Is there anything to be said for another famine?

Keatsian

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

There are already checks between Northern Ireland and Britain. They are concentrated at ports and airports, because, you know, what with the sea and everything there aren't roads crisscrossing the border. In other words, Northern Ireland and Britain are already separated by a natural border, and policing it is nowhere near as challenging or potentially destabilizing as a hard border between the two parts of Ireland was or would be.

dr.fuzzenstein

Hurrache wrote: »

The decision to say you are being swayed towards favouring Brexit after everything that has happened and with all the info being readily available is ignorance and madness.

Sometimes things just are what they are.

And supporting Brexit out of sheer spite because the remain side said mean things is certainly ignorance and madness.

cml387

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And supporting Brexit out of sheer spite because the remain side said mean things is certainly ignorance and madness.

I can understand the view in Britain that they are being bullied by the EU, even it's the wrong view.

After all, did we not have the same view when it came to the bailout?

Laois_Man

cml387 wrote: »

A situation where the taoiseach and the PM are barely on speaking terms

I know they disagree - But where has this come from?

dr.fuzzenstein

cml387 wrote: »

I can understand the view in Britain that they are being bullied by the EU, even it's the wrong view.

After all, did we not have the same view when it came to the bailout?

I remember. However, when it came to the bailout, sense prevailed.
How would it have ended up had it been put to a public vote? Who knows.

FreudianSlippers

cml387 wrote: »

I can understand the view in Britain that they are being bullied by the EU, even it's the wrong view.

After all, did we not have the same view when it came to the bailout?

The IMF were probably the more vocal party in the Troika and, in fairness, they were correct.

My recollection is that the ECB and EU were against a blanket bailout of the banks.

Hurrache

Laois_Man wrote: »

I know they disagree - But where has this come from?

I think it was suggested the other day by one of the English tabloids.

downcow

cml387 wrote: »

Now we have all these accusations thrown back and forth and tensions mounting. A situation where the taoiseach and the PM are barely on speaking terms.

That we have gone backwards so quickly in a few years, well it makes me weep.

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

With regard to the 'border' (and where it is) and to the GFA, the 'UK' has acceded to EU wishes TWICE and have been thwarted TWICE by the DUP and others.
The problem is not Dublin, Brussels nor London therefore.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

This is exactly the type of ignorance I was talking about.

FreudianSlippers

downcow wrote: »

The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes.

There are no "EU wishes"

cml387

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

Well I think the "threat of violence" may well have been overplayed in some quarters.

However, here's a scenario that could play out.

Smuggling is already a big problem cross border, with dissidents involved.
With a different customs arrangement and tariff regime this would increase by a vast amount.
Customs patrols would increase on both sides.
Customs patrols would be attacked.
Security forces are deployed to defend customs.
Security forces are attacked.....and so it all kicks off.

Leroy42

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

Sorry, but this seems to be implying that the EU are making threats to the UK. They are not.

The threat of violence is based on the history and the recognition that there still exists real tensions within NI. It is merely stating a possible outcome.

Are you trying to suggest that there is no threat of a return to violence? That a hard border would not result in an increase in personal form the UK security forces and thus the possibility of some people taking violent action?

You think it is all just a made up threat from Leo and Tusk?

Captain Obvious

The EU have been incredibly kind to the UK. Not only did they set out their position from the very start, they have respected the UK's decision and been very accommodating too. The UK, on the other hand, can't even agree anything amongst themselves. They sent their most incompetent politicians to negotiate. They have bad mouthed the EU leaders and negotiators the entire time. They have continued to lie to their people. A journalist jokes about "EU bullies" to Theresa May and it's laughed at, the Luxembourg PM says "Brexit is your choice, not mine" and they lose their minds over the disrespect. The EU has been treating the UK with kids gloves and has been patting them on the head the whole time.

Keatsian

downcow wrote: »

The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

There is no "threat" of a return to violence by Dublin or the EU. There is a warning that a hard border could provoke a return to violence by stoking resentment and giving dissidents a target. And London agrees with this analysis, which is why May committed to keeping the border open. The argument is about how an open border is achieved, not whether it ought to be an open border or not.

lawred2

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

Sorry - who do you think is threatening violence?

The violence was between two sets of people resident in UK.

Well forgive the rest of us for not wanting British people (and of course those who identify as Irish people but are resident in the UK) killing each other again.

Nasty EU again simply expecting the HMG to honour its own agreements...

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

The day the referendum announced, this was highlighted as an unsolvable problem for any kind of a neat and tidy Brexit. Go back to the first chapter of this thread and you'll see that "the Irish Border" was predicted to be one hell of a headache for the UK. Guess what? It barely registered on the Brexiteer's radar. "Ireland" - to them - has always been some vaguely defined concept somewhere to the west of Oxford, Cambridge and Eton, and irrelevant to British politics.

Then the English electorate voted Leave, and reality kicked in. It is not the fault of the Irish or the EU or anyone else that the Brexiteers ignored a hugely complicated aspect of their proposed separation from the EU; and it is not "unfair" that those who said two and three year ago that this would cause ructions in Westminster were proved right.

The same applies to accusations of "bullying" by the EU. Our political leaders (speaking as an EU citizen) told us that they would secure the best possible deal for us, but as it looks increasingly likely that the UK will not ratify that deal, our 27-state EU government has warned us to prepare for a no-deal Brexit and what complications that might involve. As recently as yesterday, it was reported that the UK government is not going to describe what the practical effects of a no-deal Brexit will be for the ordinary British subject in relation to travel (Sky news report).

So how can you reconcile your preference to now vote Leave when Westminster is a rudderless ship, keeping everyone (including you) in the dark, and the EU puts everything up on the internet for all to see?

flatty

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

The other thing, is that the threat of a return to violence is a fact, rather than a threat per se. Perhaps "significant risk" would be a better term, but it is the Westminster govt, and predominantly teresa may with her red lines and complete disregard for the lives of others, who is responsible. It is nothing to do with Dail Eireann.

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

They just signed one with Japan, something the Japanese will replicate for the UK independently. The US are ready to go as are Australia...these should be much higher priorities then the EU. These are natural friends and allies, nations that can be trusted. The five eyes security network friends.

The moon and stars have indicated they are ready to do a trade deal too don't you know. It will all be sun and roses, because.... well, just because.

Call me Al

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

You should appreciate that this
"thinly veiled threat" is coming from your very own police force.

On either side indeed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-46180190

Imreoir2

Sam Russell wrote: »

Did you vote for T. May, MP or D. Cameron, MP in any of the last few elections?

You could not have voted for both, because the represent different constituencies. Also, they represent safe Tory seats, so no matter which way you voted, it would not be of much affect because enough of the constituency would vote for a Tory goat if it was on the ballot paper.

The UK must be one of the least democratic countries in the EU with its FPTP system for the lower house and un-elected Peers for the upper house, and a hereditary head of state.

Is it true that the UK is would not actually meet the democratic criteria for membership of the EU if it were applying today? Heard that somewhere but have not found a good source for it.

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

I feel this is the crux of the issue. So many people have decided that it is entirely the uks responsibility to provide the answers to this problem.
I completely accept that it is a significant problem but I don’t accept that there is a Devine right for Eu to hold on to states and perceive it as the states fault if it’s peolle decide they want out.
I think it was 74 the UK people voted to join the common market and I believe would vote in a massive majority to do that again. Those that didn’t want to go I’m accepted it was democracy and work politically to get out. In 2016 Uk voted to leave a very different beast and that should be respected. If that was the starting point there would b hope of agreement but from day one Eu and ireland tried to undermine that democratic decision and most infuriatingly used the hard won gfa as the battering ram.
Those who want back in can work politically for that. If Eu transformed then I would also be working to rejoin but Eu has became arrogant, undemocratic, and on UK exit downright difficult

People knew what they voted for in 1975. The narrative has been changed since then to somehow state that they only voted for a common market.





You will see in both of these images they talk about security and political influence. It is a stretch to say that a common market only would have you involved with these with other countries as well.

downcow wrote: »

Do you not understand that if borders in ireland upset nationalists and threaten the peace, then borders in the Irish Sea upset unionists and equally threaten the peace. Unless you believe the threat is all from republicans and that loyalists are nice guys that offer no threat. That’s what I feel is unfair in the current Eu/ire analysis / manipulation. I am seriously interested in what you think about this?

There is already a border in the Irish Sea. There are already checks happening between NI and the rest of the UK. This is what Barnier was talking about when he said they need to soften the language on the border. It will be easier to maintain no border as all parties want by increasing checks where they are already happening, instead of creating a new border that will be impossible to do.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

An Irish sea border has zero negative impact on Northern Ireland.

No, any border will have a negative impact on NI. Whichever one you pick will hurt the economy, so that is why it is unfathomable to me that any party in NI would have decided Brexit is a good idea. There is nothing good about it...and yet here we are.

downcow wrote: »

Agreed.
Just to be clear I am not a dup voter and I voted yes to the gfa.
The thing that has wound me up most is the thinly veiled threat of a return to violence if Uk does not adhere to Eu wishes. History should show that the threat of violence against any community simply unites them, makes them stronger, and drives them into the trenches. Unfortunately I believe your pm etc has not realised the consequences of the stuff be said about return to violence. The memories are too recent to be played around with. On either side

I think you may want to have a word with the Chief Constable of the PSNI.

PSNI chief warning over post-Brexit threat

The PSNI Chief Constable has accused some Westminster politicians of failing to understand the dangers of terrorism in Northern Ireland post -Brexit.

In an interview in the Sunday Times, George Hamilton warns that the government is failing to prepare for the impact of the UK leaving the EU on the peace and security in NI.

He said that he is not getting the information and clarity needed.

Mr Hamilton said that some Westminster politicians view NI as "peripheral".

"There's a feeling that as regards the Troubles and the conflict, Northern Ireland is sorted and we don't need to worry about it, when actually we're working flat out 24/7 to keep a lid on it," he said.

Mr Hamilton issued a similar warning when he appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in June.

This is not the EU making these threats, it is the PSNI that are warning us of the threats.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is it true that the UK is would not actually meet the democratic criteria for membership of the EU if it were applying today? Heard that somewhere but have not found a good source for it.

No, they'd be fine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria#Democracy