Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

Theresa May have made choices, but she's far from in control.

The proof: she whipped her own party to vote against the deal she negotiated and spent months trying to get passed as the best deal possible. She is just swinging with the wind, doing whatever it looks like will keep her in #10 for another day, another week.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

A gentle reminder folks that the topic of this thread is brexit. If there is sufficient substance to the issue of criticising a politicians hair, a new thread can be started.

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Cable is not saying they are unprepared for No Deal so they should prepare.

He is saying they have not even pretended to prepare for No Deal in NI, so they are clearly bluffing, and plan to fold if their bluff is called.

I know what Cable is saying. Either way it's a lack of preparedness.

FrancieBrady

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

What was the barrister saying?

Can't quote him, but basically it was a plea for a conversation to take place about the legal and cultural position of people he said would become 3rd class European citizens after Brexit.

Hurrache

On the Trimble legal challenge to the backstop, it's not actually his challenge, more so he's part of a group that are challenging it, including Ruth Dudley Edwards and big unionist Jeff Dudgeon. They're trying to raise funds at the moment and are looking for donations, I've no doubt much will be filtered from the ERG and the shady Leave campaigns they've been associated with.

“The case, as you will appreciate, has become necessary, to break the deadlock which we find ourselves in as we head inexorably to a no-deal EU exit on 29 March, if no compromises are available or none are forced upon the governments. Our view is that the backstop and its creation is unnecessary, contrary to law and treaty, as well as demonstrably going to bring about that which it is intended to stop. Considerable funding, very soon, is required to get the matter into court.

Dudgeon claims that the only solution is a bilateral agreement between Ireland and the UK. There's a hearing at the High Court in London next week to seek a judicial review.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

I know what Cable is saying. Either way it's a lack of preparedness.

Yes, but why would they prepare for No Deal if they have no intention of leaving with No Deal? They have done a few PR stunts and some half-assed ferry bookings, just enough to try an bluff people into thinking they have prepared.


Oh, and some people have come out and said "They have done a load of prep, trust me, they just haven't made it public", but that is an obvious lie.

prawnsambo

Hurrache wrote: »

On the Trimble legal challenge to the backstop, it's not actually his challenge, more so he's part of a group that are challenging it, including Ruth Dudley Edwards and big unionist Jeff Dudgeon. They're trying to raise funds at the moment and are looking for donations, I've not doubt much will be filtered from the ERG and the shady Leave campaigns they've been associated with.


Dudgeon claims that the only solution is a bilateral agreement between Ireland and the UK. There's a hearing at the High Court in London next week to seek a judicial review.

Well on matters of trade and customs, Ireland cannot make a bilateral agreement with the UK. At least not without the approval of the EU; which doesn't seem likely. So they're barking up the wrong tree if that's the plan.


Jeff will be in high dudgeon when it gets thrown out of court.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

His nappy hair.

"Nappy", in American English, has nothing to do with what you wrap around a baby's bottom - that's a "diaper". In American English it's an adjective, meaning "frizzy". "Nap' is the layer of projecting fibres that you get on the surface of tweed, wool and similar fabrics; also the finish that is deliberately created on, e.g., velvet or corduroy fabrics by raising fibres and cutting them to a uniform length. Thus "nappy" cloth is cloth with a nap, and by analogy "nappy hair" is tightly cut frizzy hair, considered in the US to be stereotypical of black people, and especially of black people who do not use artificial hair straighteners.

It's one of those words that frequently, but not always, gets used with derogatory overtones.

ah interesting - cheers

Enzokk

Seems that Arlene Foster was on Radio 4 Today this morning and she seems to confirm that the DUP has their thinking totally confused on what Brexit could mean for a united Ireland.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1092699230312038401

Nick Eardley - 'DUP leader Arlene Foster says on @BBCr4today that the backstop "would cause the break up of the UK into the medium and longer term"'

I really have a hard time to get any sense from the DUP and what they are thinking will happen. They are once again on the wrong side of history and you have to wonder whether any of their leaders ever stop to think about that.

kuro68k

Didn't May agree that the backstop would cover the whole UK, ensuring that it doesn't break up?

prawnsambo

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems that Arlene Foster was on Radio 4 Today this morning and she seems to confirm that the DUP has their thinking totally confused on what Brexit could mean for a united Ireland.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1092699230312038401

Nick Eardley - 'DUP leader Arlene Foster says on @BBCr4today that the backstop "would cause the break up of the UK into the medium and longer term"'

I really have a hard time to get any sense from the DUP and what they are thinking will happen. They are once again on the wrong side of history and you have to wonder whether any of their leaders ever stop to think about that.

I believe the (warped) thinking here is that once the UK has farmed their unicorns and the future relationship is set through an FTA which excludes the CU or SM or both, then the backstop would be permanent for NI and therefore divergent from the rest of the UK.

Macy0161

kuro68k wrote: »

Didn't May agree that the backstop would cover the whole UK, ensuring that it doesn't break up?

Yes, it was originally intended to be NI only. Business Leaders were delighted, as it gave them the best of both worlds (assuming any type of upside for GB from Brexit). DUP veto'd as they saw it as a border down the Irish Sea.

Enzokk

kuro68k wrote: »

Didn't May agree that the backstop would cover the whole UK, ensuring that it doesn't break up?

That is only for the customs union. There would still be different regulations to ensure the border stays open between NI and the rest of the UK. But it is not as dramatic as the DUP want to make it sound as there are already some checks on different regulations happening right now. I believe there are agriculture checks that happens between Ireland the and UK as well as NI and the UK.

prawnsambo wrote: »

I believe the (warped) thinking here is that once the UK has farmed their unicorns and the future relationship is set through an FTA which excludes the CU or SM or both, then the backstop would be permanent for NI and therefore divergent from the rest of the UK.

I know what the thinking was regarding the referendum, once the UK is removed from the EU and they are doing so well and Ireland and the EU goes down in flames it would settle the question of reunification forever. I am thinking how on almost every recent social or political issue how they are somehow on the wrong side of history. They were against the GFA. They are against same sex marriage. They are against abortion. They could test whether their way of thinking really is what the majority in NI wants but cowards will be cowards.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems that Arlene Foster was on Radio 4 Today this morning and she seems to confirm that the DUP has their thinking totally confused on what Brexit could mean for a united Ireland.

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1092699230312038401

Nick Eardley - 'DUP leader Arlene Foster says on @BBCr4today that the backstop "would cause the break up of the UK into the medium and longer term"'

I really have a hard time to get any sense from the DUP and what they are thinking will happen. They are once again on the wrong side of history and you have to wonder whether any of their leaders ever stop to think about that.

From their point of view they see that inevitably GB will want further separation from the EU (ERG etc) and if that means sacrificing NI at some point then so be it (TM had already agreed to it before Arlene pulled the plug in December 2017).

So they are thinking that if they agree to this now, when they have the controlling votes in Government, what chance so they have in later years when they probably won't.

It makes perfect sense. In effect, the DUP are saying they do not believe the union, of which they express undying devoting, can be trusted and they fully expect it to dump them. So whilst we look at the backstop as a way to avoid a hard border, they see a crash out, or a single UK wide deal, as the only way to avoid a UI in the medium term.

alloywheel

A border down the Irish sea would not work, Northern Ireland does much more trade with mainland Britain than it does with the Republic.

The British government does not want a hard border in Ireland, the unionists do not want it and nobody else in Ireland wants a hard border...the only people who want a hard border are the EU. Time Leo stood up to them, or we will get shafted by our EU masters again, same as we did during the credit bubble and subsequent save the German bondholders bailout.

Hurrache

alloywheel wrote: »

Time Leo stood up to them, or we will get shafted by our EU masters again, same as we did during the credit bubble and subsequent save the German bondholders bailout.

Tell us what the solution is, or are you just throwing around soundbites?

mrbrianj

If you look past the false non logic position of the DUP whats left?

They hope to exploit brexit to get a hard border, kill off the GFA and return them to the sunny uplands of pre-civil rights era "Ulster". I suppose their own microcosm of the ERG's Brexit.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

From their point of view they see that inevitably GB will want further separation from the EU (ERG etc) and if that means sacrificing NI at some point then so be it (TM had already agreed to it before Arlene pulled the plug in December 2017).

So they are thinking that if they agree to this now, when they have the controlling votes in Government, what chance so they have in later years when they probably won't.

It makes perfect sense. In effect, the DUP are saying they do not believe the union, of which they express undying devoting, cannot be trusted and they fully expect it to dump them. So whilst we look at the backstop as a way to avoid a hard border, they see a crash out, or a single UK wide deal, as the only way to avoid a UI in the medium term.

The one reason why "neutrals" in NI would vote for a united Ireland is if they would be better off financially in Ireland than the UK. It is as simple as that and the way to ensure that is to cut yourself off from what has made your country do well economically for the last 40 years. I know we are aware of it here but it amazes me that they are so blinded by this. I mean your hardcore unionist and republican will not change their vote so if there is a vote to join Ireland the pitch will need to be made to the independents.

Their starting position is way off base, that the UK will be better off outside of the EU rather than staying in the EU so any ideas or thinking from there will be made from a position that is incorrect from the start.

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

From their point of view they see that inevitably GB will want further separation from the EU (ERG etc) and if that means sacrificing NI at some point then so be it (TM had already agreed to it before Arlene pulled the plug in December 2017).

So they are thinking that if they agree to this now, when they have the controlling votes in Government, what chance so they have in later years when they probably won't.

It makes perfect sense. In effect, the DUP are saying they do not believe the union, of which they express undying devoting, cannot be trusted and they fully expect it to dump them. So whilst we look at the backstop as a way to avoid a hard border, they see a crash out, or a single UK wide deal, as the only way to avoid a UI in the medium term.

It's the implication inherent in the GFA (that unionism never voices) made manifest. 'The union will divest northern Ireland when it becomes expedient to do so.'
Everyone, including unionism thought that day would come from the Irish getting the upper hand or political clout, but here it arrives at their door from the Union itself.

Anthracite

alloywheel wrote: »

A border down the Irish sea would not work, Northern Ireland does much more trade with mainland Britain than it does with the Republic.

The British government does not want a hard border in Ireland, the unionists do not want it and nobody else in Ireland wants a hard border...the only people who want a hard border are the EU. Time Leo stood up to them, or we will get shafted by our EU masters again, same as we did during the credit bubble and subsequent save the German bondholders bailout.

Absolute nonsense. Can you, unlike the entire Brexiteer movement, explain how we can have no border in Ireland and stop goods moving between two different customs zones without checking for standards and duties?

mrbrianj

alloywheel wrote: »

A border down the Irish sea would not work, Northern Ireland does much more trade with mainland Britain than it does with the Republic.

The British government does not want a hard border in Ireland, the unionists do not want it and nobody else in Ireland wants a hard border...the only people who want a hard border are the EU. Time Leo stood up to them, or we will get shafted by our EU masters again, same as we did during the credit bubble and subsequent save the German bondholders bailout.

It could also be viewed as we are being shafted by our UK Masters again just to bailout the Tories and the unionists.

alloywheel

Enzokk wrote: »

Their starting position is way off base, that the UK will be better off outside of the EU rather than staying in the EU so any ideas or thinking from there will be made from a position that is incorrect from the start.

The EU is the second biggest net contributor to the EU after Germany and even still has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the EU. If the EU makes life difficult for the UK, it is not just the UK who will suffer. The EU has lower grrowth than the rest of the world. The UK was always a world trading nation, it does not want to be held back by the EU.

Hurrache

alloywheel wrote: »

The EU is the second biggest net contributor to the EU after Germany and even still has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the EU. If the EU makes life difficult for the UK, it is not just the UK who will suffer. The EU has lower grrowth than the rest of the world. The UK was always a world trading nation, it does not want to be held back by the EU.

The UK has made life difficult for the UK. You've had years to figure this out.

How has the UK been a world trading nation outside of the EU?

I don't expect any answer from you, because you don't have any, you're just here to throw around dumb catch phrases.

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

The British government does not want a hard border in Ireland, the unionists do not want it and nobody else in Ireland wants a hard border...the only people who want a hard border are the EU.

I'm confused.
To my knowledge, the UK chose to leave the EU without any trade agreement, which means that if the UK wants to have any new trade agreements with other countries once they've left then they need to protect their border.
Between the EU and the UK they came up with a compromise which ensured that there would be no border. The UK rejected this.
So how exactly is it the EU who are the ones that you think want the border?

alloywheel wrote: »

Time Leo stood up to them, or we will get shafted by our EU masters again, same as we did during the credit bubble and subsequent save the German bondholders bailout.

Who is this "we" you refer to as your view surely cannot be taken from an Irish perspective?
As for Leo standing up to them, stand up to what? The soladarity shown by the EU in the face of childish indecision? The protection the EU has shown towards the union? The protection of the EU's trade? Which of the nasty things that the EU has been doing should we stand up to?

Enzokk

And then we have this wonderful quote from Arlene as well,

https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1092464103967391744

'Arlene Foster: "This is not a time for intransigence."'

alloywheel

Anthracite wrote: »

Can you, unlike the entire Brexiteer movement, explain how we can have no border in Ireland and stop goods moving between two different customs zones without checking for standards and duties?

We already and always have had goods moving between 2 different customs zones in these islands, since partition.

Tacitus Kilgore

alloywheel wrote: »

We already and always have had goods moving between 2 different customs zones in these islands, since partition.

Ya, and we also had a hard border too.

alloywheel

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So how exactly is it the EU who are the ones that you think want the border?

The UK will not spend one penny erecting a hard border in Ireland. They do not want it.

Seth Brundle

alloywheel wrote: »

The EU is the second biggest net contributor to the EU after Germany and even still has a much lower unemployment rate than the rest of the EU. If the EU makes life difficult for the UK, it is not just the UK who will suffer. The EU has lower grrowth than the rest of the world. The UK was always a world trading nation, it does not want to be held back by the EU.

Are you saying that the UK get nothing in return for its membership?
How has the Eu made life difficult for the UK? The UK never wanted to be an equal member within the union and frequently didn't participate as a team player e.g. the currency.
IMO it will be good for the UK to be out in the cold for a while and when they come back they will rejoin as a proper card carrying member.

Hurrache

alloywheel wrote: »

The UK will not spend one penny erecting a hard border in Ireland. They do not want it.

Another question for you you won't answer.

They want to take back control of their borders. How will they do that without a border?