Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How would they be a ally ?

I'd argue they would be the opposite

We would both be competing for the same investment etc.

Anyway IndyRef2 talk increased after the 2015 GE and the Brexit referendum but died down again post the GE in 2018.

And a bit like NI just because a majority voted Remain it does not mean they want independence

Sorry mods going a bit off topic.

Yeah but their aggregate wishes to remain have been utterly ignored by the English vote to leave.

It is exactly actions like that that move people's positions

Fr Tod Umptious

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah but their aggregate wishes to remain have been utterly ignored by the English vote to leave.

It is exactly actions like that that move people's positions

But the 2018 GE would indicate otherwise.

Professor Moriarty

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the 2018 GE would indicate otherwise.

It was in June 2017.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I made a post within the last hour saying I don't care about the grandstanders, but its tough not to get irked by Ian Paisley Jnr.

His credibility has been ruined over the past 12 months, but still he gets a microphone and true to form the misinformation and contradictions he speaks in that interview are crazy.

I can’t stand paisley jrn and I would say he is seriously disliked by the majority of unionists outside his own constituency - with very good reason.
So can we set the messenger aside. I believe the message was fairly much spot on and an accurate representation of where s large number of unionists sit on brexit.

While its nice to see you've moved from trying to speak for the entirety of the North, to just the majority of Unionists, can you just stop trying to tell us what others think based on your hunches.

If you agree with what Ian Paisley Jr says, just say you agree with it. Stop trying to add some sort of authority to it, in lieu of actual facts, with an extremely weak consensus fallacy.

So moving on from that, what is your factual basis for agreeing with what Ian Paisley had to say, beyond gut feeling and Rule Britannia?

lawred2

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the 2018 GE would indicate otherwise.

It wasn't last year..

However the reality of Brexit is now much more widely understood than it was then..

Either way it is post Brexit that will really form the mood where Scottish independence is concerned.

Fr Tod Umptious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It was in June 2017.

Yes, thanks, time is flying.

RobMc59

lawred2 wrote: »

Even if something has moved - why is it always painted as 'blinking' as if it's a hard man game where someone has to be a winner?

If there has been movement it will be because finally the UK will have actually come forward with a satisfactory proposal..

I find it sad really that you can't see that the only party to these negotiations that have worked the hardest for the rights of those in northern Ireland is the Irish government. You still see it a fight to get one over the 'South'

You are probably correct that the DUP want to get one over the south but the hardline brexiteers in the UK government aren't particularly interested in Ireland-they see it as an irritating block in the road to their goal-they loath the core of the EU and would rejoice if brexit brought the EU down.
On a separate note,I think the US wouldn't be too bothered if the EU collapsed as they also see it as an irritation and the thought of an EU army might challenge their "top dog"status in Europe in military terms.
Russia loves all this as it weakens the EU who they see as a potential superpower if the EU army happens and is properly organised ,a double bonus is the UK diminished is one less thorn in its side.
If the UK has the sense to remain in the EU and made a genuine go of it instead of belly aching-Europe could not only be the most powerful economic alliance it could be the top military alliance-that's not to say the EU should then throw it's weight around but it would have its own destiny in its hands and not beholden to the US or under threat from Russia.
Sorry if I've gone slightly off subject!

CrabRevolution

Paisley's reading of the Irish political landscape is about as good as any British Media figures have managed, including gems like:

-Our minority government is unstable and since 2016 could have an election any day now (despite the parties explicitly agreeing to park party issues until after brexit).

-Fine Gael are trying to out-republican Sinn Féin (which anyone familiar with Ireland would know is the last thing FG would do).

-Ireland were just being uppity because it was a presidential election year (enough said).

Hurrache

RobMc59 wrote: »

On a separate note,I think the US wouldn't be too bothered if the EU collapsed as they also see it as an irritation and the thought of an EU army might challenge their "top dog"status in Europe in military terms.

I think you're conflating the current administration with the general consensus of the US.

intellectual dosser

downcow wrote: »

I can’t stand paisley jrn and I would say he is seriously disliked by the majority of unionists outside his own constituency - with very good reason.
So can we set the messenger aside. I believe the message was fairly much spot on and an accurate representation of where s large number of unionists sit on brexit.

He talks about a WA that puts NI in a different position than the rest of the UK, but the backstop in its current format encompasses all of the UK.

He talks about Japanese car manufacturers leaving in droves, we know about the closures and cut backs in England, then he mentions Turkey? The French and Germans would lick their lips at the Japanese leaving town.

As for Ireland having to back down under EU pressure, there has been no chink in any armour, or anything to suggest that there will be a change in position. Anyone who thinks that the WA will be reopened, rewritten and closed 35 days before March 29th is naive. The rest of the EU may have other motivations, but the backstop is non-negotiable.

I'm not watching him again to point out his other b/s.

kunst nugget

Hurrache wrote: »

I think you're conflating the current administration with the general consensus of the US.

There would be a fairly strong dislike of the EU in conservative circles in the US. I remember reading that Declan Ganley first proposed the notion of the Libertas party as a disruptive element in European politics in a journal for an American conservative think tank.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

but died down again post the GE in 2018.

It did not, you missed the Scottish Parliament elections which gave the pro-independence parties (SNP & Green) a majority in parliament and a mandate for another referendum due to material change in circumstances

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

While its nice to see you've moved from trying to speak for the entirety of the North, to just the majority of Unionists, can you just stop trying to tell us what others think based on your hunches.

This really is fairly pathetic nit-picking. I have tried my best to be careful with the words I have used in the last few posts and you still play the man rather than the ball.
I said “I believe the message was fairly much spot on and an accurate representation of where s large number of unionists sit on brexit.”
NB ‘I believe’
NB ‘a large number of’
Let’s try and focus on the issues.
Ps if you be specific about something paisley said that was absurd then I will certainly address that as best I can.
I completely accept that what another poster pointed out he had said about milk entering the south was not accurate. But can you point something significant that you think was nonsense

A Dub in Glasgo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the 2018 GE would indicate otherwise.

The SNP won the majority of seats in Scotland in the June 17 GE anyway

ToBeFrank123

Looks like the Irish government may have over-played its hand re the backstop.

The House of Commons, particularly this House of Commons, (voted in on the back of the Leave result) was never going to accept a Backstop without legal guarantees or it being time limited.

If we end up with a hard border it will be a huge failure by both Irish and British politicians and history will not look kindly on them.

Hurrache

kunst nugget wrote: »

There would be a fairly strong dislike of the EU in conservative circles in the US.

Some circles of course but the rest is a generalisation.

Golfer999999

looking for a silver lining here - does No Deal brexit mean duty free at ports and airports going to the UK?:D

Hurrache

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Looks like the Irish government may have over-played its hand re the backstop.

How?

ToBeFrank123

There is a strong dislike of everyone and everything in some US Conservative circles. I don't think the EU will take it personally.

Dyr

Golfer999999 wrote: »

looking for a silver lining here - does No Deal brexit mean duty free at ports and airports going to the UK?:D

They'll even let you start knocking it back while you're in the mile long queue.

AlmightyCushion

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Looks like the Irish government may have over-played its hand re the backstop.

The House of Commons, particularly this House of Commons, (voted in on the back of the Leave result) was never going to accept a Backstop without legal guarantees or it being time limited.

If we end up with a hard border it will be a huge failure by both Irish and British politicians and history will not look kindly on them.

There are legal guarantees, they are written into the withdrawal agreement. The UK have said that there are technologies that will eliminate the need for a border. Once those technologies are implemented then that satisfies the backstop and it ends.

Fr Tod Umptious

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The SNP won the majority of seats in Scotland in the June 17 GE anyway

It's off topic I know but I could not let such spin just sit there.

They lost 21 seats between the 2015 and 2017 elections
The Conservatives gained 13, Labour gained 6, the Lib Dems gained 3

Support for IndeyRef2 quelled at that stage.

ToBeFrank123

Hurrache wrote: »

How?

Varadkar said he's not going to back down and he's not for turning on the backstop and he and the EU have offered no legal guarantees about its limitations.

The UK have clearly said they don't accept this.

We are in a stand off. That's fine, but it means a hard border becomes more of a probability.

Neither side willing to back down, or compromise. Its pathetic really. And both sides will suffer for it, us included. The price of every basic foodstuff will rise for a start.

murphaph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Looks like the Irish government may have over-played its hand re the backstop.

The House of Commons, particularly this House of Commons, (voted in on the back of the Leave result) was never going to accept a Backstop without legal guarantees or it being time limited.

If we end up with a hard border it will be a huge failure by both Irish and British politicians and history will not look kindly on them.

For the umpteenth time...better a hard border due to no agreement than an agreed hard border. The former should not last too long given the other effects no agreement will have, especially in the home counties.

ToBeFrank123

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

There are legal guarantees, they are written into the withdrawal agreement. The UK have said that there are technologies that will eliminate the need for a border. Once those technologies are implemented then that satisfies the backstop and it ends.

That's a case of how long is a piece of string. The UK want guarantees that if the technologies can't be implemented fully, they are not tied into a backstop indefinitely. Reasonable point, as there is no proven technology to stop someone smuggling Brazilian beef to Southern Ireland for example. They want to be able to walk away from a backstop agreement rather than be tied indefinitely to it. You get the feeling the EU are trying to tie them in indefinitely.
The EU have made it clear they want to make it nigh on impossible for anyone to leave the EU.

ToBeFrank123

murphaph wrote: »

For the umpteenth time...better a hard border due to no agreement than an agreed hard border. The former should not last too long given the other effects no agreement will have, especially in the home counties.

Nope. Better an agreement that avoids tariffs on both sides. Otherwise you will pay a lot more for flour/bread and other imported goods from the UK of which there are many.

And our farming and beef industry will be ruined.

Any kind of hard border and more so tariffs will be a disaster.

Leroy42

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's a case of how long is a piece of string. The UK want guarantees that if the technologies can't be implemented fully, they are not tied into a backstop indefinitely. Reasonable point, as there is no proven technology to stop someone smuggling Brazilian beef to Southern Ireland for example. They want to be able to walk away from a backstop agreement rather than be tied indefinitely to it. You get the feeling the EU are trying to tie them in indefinitely.
The EU have made it clear they want to make it nigh on impossible for anyone to leave the EU.

Absolute rubbish.

Have you read anything about the backstop, about the EU position, about how the backstop came to be?

So what should Leo have done? Allowed for the UK to leave it whenever they wanted, so hard border.

Allowed a time limit, sort of like a two years A50 negotiation period? We end up with a hard border.

The UK have the choice, only the UK. If a hard border goes up then it is because the UK have decided that there commitment to no border is not as strong as something else. And that would be true no matter what the EU or Leo did.

seamus

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That's a case of how long is a piece of string. The UK want guarantees that if the technologies can't be implemented fully, they are not tied into a backstop indefinitely.

If it's not indefinite, then it's not a backstop.

The UK wants to be able to use Northern Ireland as a pawn in trade negotiations. Nothing more.

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

Fionn1952 wrote: »

While its nice to see you've moved from trying to speak for the entirety of the North, to just the majority of Unionists, can you just stop trying to tell us what others think based on your hunches.

This really is fairly pathetic nit-picking. I have tried my best to be careful with the words I have used in the last few posts and you still play the man rather than the ball.
I said “I believe the message was fairly much spot on and an accurate representation of where s large number of unionists sit on brexit.”
NB ‘I believe’
NB ‘a large number of’
Let’s try and focus on the issues.
Ps if you be specific about something paisley said that was absurd then I will certainly address that as best I can.
I completely accept that what another poster pointed out he had said about milk entering the south was not accurate. But can you point something significant that you think was nonsense

I'll put aside your inability to realise you're still trying to speak for large groups, leaving you with one little tip. Instead of, "I believe that large numbers of Unionists think"....just try, 'I think'.

Like I said, I have no problem with YOU agreeing with what Ian Paisley Jr has to say, I have issue with you attributing this opinion to a non-specific, "them" to stop add a veneer of authority to your opinion based on a consensus fallacy, in lieu of actual fact/statistics to back up your claim.

In terms of absurdity from Paisley, how about, 'listen mate, you've had enough fun with the politics of this, now it's time to get on with the real deal". Do you not see the absolute disrespect, and complete lack of awareness of how the EU works if Paisley thinks that Macron or Merkel would say this, and even if they would, how irrelevant it would be?

It's the same nonsense thats been parroted time and time again, despite all evidence to the contrary. 'The German car makers' this, 'Ireland will be told to' that etc, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how the EU works, and simply put hasn't and won't materialise. The obvious reason that it won't materialise is that it would undermine the integrity of the EU in such a way that in trying to prevent a significant, but surmountable loss in Britain, the entire EU breaks down.

How about the description of the entire negotiation to date as being to suit Irish domestic politics? Sounds a lot like the repeatedly debunked claims you've made in the past on this thread, which have been so thoroughly explained that I presume you're not even going to try and reassert?

Fr Tod Umptious

murphaph wrote: »

For the umpteenth time...better a hard border due to no agreement than an agreed hard border. The former should not last too long given the other effects no agreement will have, especially in the home counties.

At this stage I for one am willing to see a hard border so that it shows to the UK that they cannot be out of everything and still have a open border on this island