Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

But then, as far as we know, the first time Arklow's involvement was known was after the deal fell through, so they could have bought their ships without it being public knowledge.

The point he was making is that while the deal was ongoing, Arklow were kept out of the limelight in order to maximise value. Now that it's over, there's no need to keep it quiet.

downcow

Inquitus wrote: »

Its not a backstop if it is time limited or the UK can unilaterally leave, that is why it is not going to be changed. It's not cutting off our nose to spite our face, it's the only way no border on the Island of Ireland can be implemented. The sensible solution is to have a border in the Irish Sea, but that won't be countenanced by the DUP despite being the simplest and best solution.

The irony is that it is the very insistence on an indefinite backstop that is going to ensure a very hard border and very poor long term relationships between UK & ireland. Genuinely very sad.

josip

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It can't be that. The other two ferry companies involved were DFDS (Danish) and Brittany Ferries (French).

They may have been conscious of the optics if all of the business was going to foreign companies.
It's not very reassuring for the public if Britain is going to take back control of its borders, yet none of its companies tendered successfully for this contract.
Especially considering the success of Britain's maritime past.
There may have been an overarching need to give at least part of the tender to a British company, any British company.

listermint

downcow wrote: »

The irony is that it is the very insistence on an indefinite backstop that is going to ensure a very hard border and very poor long term relationships between UK & ireland. Genuinely very sad.

Evidently not true. The irony of the DUPs insistence of no back stop will be a united Ireland. It's frankly amusing specifically to those that don't necessarily want a united Ireland or are ambivalent to the whole thing. Which is alot of people.

But the DUP being the death of the unionism they enjoyed for the last hundred years or so is in a word


Gas.

ThePanjandrum

downcow wrote: »

The irony is that it is the very insistence on an indefinite backstop that is going to ensure a very hard border and very poor long term relationships between UK & ireland. Genuinely very sad.

Logically, there should also be a backstop agreement the other way too, to prevent the more likely occurrence of the EU wanting a hard border. The EU would be unable to end this without the agreement of the UK.

downcow

Inquitus wrote: »

Its not a backstop if it is time limited or the UK can unilaterally leave, that is why it is not going to be changed. It's not cutting off our nose to spite our face, it's the only way no border on the Island of Ireland can be implemented. The sensible solution is to have a border in the Irish Sea, but that won't be countenanced by the DUP despite being the simplest and best solution.

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving” etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

First Up

downcow wrote:

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving†etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

May has committed to an open border. Is that commitment time limited?

josip

"We are where we are" would seem to me like an attempt to shirk the responsibilities of one's decisions.
Decisions have consequences.

LuckyLloyd

downcow wrote: »

The irony is that it is the very insistence on an indefinite backstop that is going to ensure a very hard border and very poor long term relationships between UK & ireland. Genuinely very sad.

Ireland is not going to accept any hardening of the border in a negotiated deal. We'll protect the EU frontier if the UK leaves in a disorderly fashion and forces us to, but we won't assent to any settlement that hardens the border immediately or puts a potential hardening of the border at a later stage as leverage in trade agreement talks.

So the Irish government will continue its insistence, backed by all major political parties and 80% of the public. We are united. We understand the great benefits of the EU. And we are ready to do what must be done to protect our interests in the event of the UK jumping over the cliff edge.

It's time for you and your community to ask what your representatives are about to foist upon you. You need to think about how a disorderly exit may destroy the concept of unionism you hold dear. And rather than hoping for Ireland to betray its interests, you should start asking the DUP to represent yours. This is a UK problem that requires UK solutions in the final analysis.

Inquitus

downcow wrote: »

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving” etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless everyone of 27 countries had to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

It has to happen, and its done on the basis that both parties will make their best endeavours to make sure it is not used, but it is the only way to solve the border issue, if the UK insists on ruling out having one on the Irish Sea.

ThePanjandrum

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

downcow

listermint wrote: »

Evidently not true. The irony of the DUPs insistence of no back stop will be a united Ireland. It's frankly amusing specifically to those that don't necessarily want a united Ireland or are ambivalent to the whole thing. Which is alot of people.

But the DUP being the death of the unionism they enjoyed for the last hundred years or so is in a word


Gas.

You are completely misreading this. A UI will not happen for economic reasons. Practically everyone north of the border suffered loss much greater than any economic loss over past 50 years That misery did not bring UI one step closer so it is unlikely hardborder will. But anyway that point becomes irrelevant because it’s not just NI but all of Uk that are unhappy. And even if you are correct, that is not what people think up here. So I wanted you to park all that blame stuff and who’s stupid etc and comment on whether you would consider indefinite backstop if the shoe was on the other foot.?

robindch

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So what was the actual outcome of the discussions last night? There seems to be zero coverage in the media.

Zero coverage? It's the lead item at the top of both RTE and the Irish Times:

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2019/0208/1028407-leo-theresa-dinner/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-and-may-discuss-brexit-overall-state-of-play-in-dublin-1.3787387

Reading in between the lines - Ollie Robbins was invited - it seems that May was hoping to get Varadkar to concede on something so she could go home and win her vote on Thursday. Instead, reports are that they talked about the Northern Assembly and as for Brexit, Varadkar pointed out again that negotiations go through the EU and Barnier, and not him.

There may well have been more to it than that, but if the reports are fully accurate, then Theresa May could have achieved as much by staying at home and doing her knitting.

ThePanjandrum

Inquitus wrote: »

It has to happen, and its done on the basis that both parties will make their best endeavours to make sure it is not used, but it is the only way to solve the border issue, if the UK insists on ruling out having one on the Irish Sea.

There's still the option of the sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

downcow

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Logically, there should also be a backstop agreement the other way too, to prevent the more likely occurrence of the EU wanting a hard border. The EU would be unable to end this without the agreement of the UK.

Interesting point. An interesting request for may to put to Eu. ie Eu cannot place a border without UK permission

josip

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

Won't they be houghed by the first past the post system that currently discourages people from voting for Lib Dems?
ie. a vote for them would be a wasted vote.
Where do you think their voters will come from?
I expect some from UKIP and a small few from the Tories, but I can't see them picking up voters from anywhere else.

LuckyLloyd

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

Irrelevant in the context of the next six weeks. Can May agree with Corbyn? Farage and the hard Brexiteers are no longer relevant.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Green beans, potatoes and salmon? Elegant messaging right there.

Green, white and orange. Plus a reference to both farmers and fishermen.

Good work chefs plus RTE!

I also like the subtle message in the incredibly petty act to have meringue as a dessert. Presumably the caterers would have been aware that May is a diabetic and couldn't eat it.

"Let them eat meringue?"

Anthracite

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Does it? I don't think many in Ireland would agree with that logic when it is used against us.

Geographically, we live on the second largest of a group of about 6000 islands labelled "the British Isles". What are we then? British? British Islanders? I expect folks here would feel it's fine for, say, English people to label us as British geographically whilst in their great magnanimity, fully acknowledging our right not to be considered culturally British? Right?

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it was the British that decided these islands be called 'the British Isles', without consulting those from the almost as large island next door.

BonnieSituation

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's still the option of the sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

We're not leaving the EU. The UK is. It's up to the UK to come up with a solution for "ITS" red lines.

So yeah, we'll repeat this again in a week or so when this circular argument comes back into orbit again.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

How will this party devastate current parliamentary arithmetic?

Enzokk

EdgeCase wrote: »

It looks like a deal that simply fell through. It's not that unusual for companies to reassess things like this.

The main thing is it doesn't seem that any public money was spent. The speed this stuff is being put together at is going to cause situations like this.

Except the time of civil servants working on the contracts for these, there was no public money spent.

Here is an interesting exchange about the Seaborne saga and why they used the justification of circumstances out of the ordinary to award the contract without a public tender.

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1082996064179970053

So more smoke and mirrors and no reason given.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

I doubt they will get enough votes for any MPs, much like UKIP. They may get a million in total all over the country but not enough to make a difference to the arithmetic in parliament. If Labour keeps their focus on the policies that matter the votes they will gain will be from the Tories mainly. I mean will they have a clear plan for housing? What about the NHS and funding for local councils and services? Just banging on about the EU when people are already fed up about it may not be the best plan.

LuckyLloyd

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's still the option of the sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

You see, stuff like this is gas. That’s 100% not an option. It has never been tabled or discussed as part of the A50 process to date, and it isn’t the policy of any party in Ireland.

I can’t guarantee a huge amount in politics, but I look you in the eye and tell you with the utmost certainty that that will never happen.

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I ask you with respect to try for a moment to look at this from a UK point of view. And yes you can hark back to who caused the problem “were not the ones leaving” etc etc. But I ask you to park that for a moment as we are where we are. Would you consider such a major agreement around trade etc, that you know the majority of your country is very unhappy with, and the was never a way out of it unless every one of 27 countries has to give you permission to get out?? Would you accept it? This is the position as I see it and why an indefinite backstop can’t possibly happen

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this. It would help me understand where you guys are coming from.

Inquitus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

BTW, I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the new Brexit Party with Nigel Farage as the leader has been approved by the Electoral Commission (which must have hurt such a pro-remain, supposedly independent organisation).
It has pledges of more than one million pounds and only started soliciting public donations yesterday. It claims to have more than 200 candidates ready to stand in any election it chooses to participate in.
That could devastate the current parliamentary arithmetic.

As mentioned by someone else the FPTP system means they will get little or no seats, see the 2015 result below where they attracted nearly 13% of the vote and ended up with one seat. It seems that the labour leave element has softened throughout the Brexit process, so I would expect a new UKIP would impact the Tories more this time while it was close to 50/50 back in 2015. That could deliver Corbyn to Number 10.

briany

Inquitus wrote: »

Its not a backstop if it is time limited or the UK can unilaterally leave, that is why it is not going to be changed. It's not cutting off our nose to spite our face, it's the only way no border on the Island of Ireland can be implemented. The sensible solution is to have a border in the Irish Sea, but that won't be countenanced by the DUP despite being the simplest and best solution.

There is no way that a border on the island of Ireland can be successfully implemented. There're people on the border who might cross it a few times, technically, while out walking the dog. They cross a little stream and suddenly they're in the North. Walk through that gap in the hedge and they're back in the Republic. Smugglers would make a mockery of so-called border controls given this level of porousness.

But we also have to admit that the backstop is not a perfect solution. As much as a hard border on this island has the potential to impede the movement of goods and peoples, as well as attract violence, a border in the sea has the potential to impede the movement of goods and people. A sea border is a natural border, of course, but are the ports set up for these extra checks? The port of Dover certainly doesn't seem to be.

What I'm saying is that we can't wave off Unionists fears as entirely illegitimate . That really doesn't help any dialog. But what I would say to Unionism is if they want to preserve their union with the UK, does a better chance lay in staying within the EU for a time, or does it lay with going out with the rest of the UK and enduring the economic fallout predicted. Really, which scenario has a greater chance of inciting a border poll?

And which border has a better chance of being policed? Is it the 300 mile land one with 270 crossing points, or is it the one where people are mostly travelling port to port? Which one has a better chance of staving off attacks?

Which one do NI business leaders support?

listermint

downcow wrote: »

You are completely misreading this. A UI will not happen for economic reasons. Practically everyone north of the border suffered loss much greater than any economic loss over past 50 years That misery did not bring UI one step closer so it is unlikely hardborder will. But anyway that point becomes irrelevant because it’s not just NI but all of Uk that are unhappy. And even if you are correct, that is not what people think up here. So I wanted you to park all that blame stuff and who’s stupid etc and comment on whether you would consider indefinite backstop if the shoe was on the other foot.?

Without being blunt. You are swimming against the tide.

Multitude of polls within NI itself Indicate overwhelmingly that a UI is more possible with a brexit. And we have tranches of the unionist community saying the same thing including the farmers association who have held many high level talks with southern high ranking civil servants.

On no plain and with no evidence does your statement concur with reality.

Sorry mate. It's just not.

And you can blame your own politicians for what's happening. No doubt you won't though. It's always someone else's fault. Ireland.... The EU ... Whatever is the flavour of the day

First Up

downcow wrote:

I am genuinely interested in an answer to this. It would help me understand where you guys are coming from.

And I'm genuinely interested in your answer to my question; is May's commitment to an open border time limited?

prawnsambo

josip wrote: »

Won't they be houghed by the first past the post system that currently discourages people from voting for Lib Dems?
ie. a vote for them would be a wasted vote.
Where do you think their voters will come from?
I expect some from UKIP and a small few from the Tories, but I can't see them picking up voters from anywhere else.

Indeed. If Farage stands again, it will be his eighth time to stand for Westminster. The other seven times didn't go so well. It's not just the FPTP system that mitigates against new parties gaining seats. It's the preponderance of safe seats that make elections a foregone conclusion in almost one third of seats. The actual democratic power in those constituencies lies with the local selection committees and not with the electorate. There's no appetite to make the system more democratic since the two main parties benefit from this.

But it literally gives seats to the "inanimate carbon rod". It's how you get such intellectual heavyweights like Kate Hoey or Nadine Dorries or Marcus "ya da ya da" Fysh, to name but a very few of many.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's still the option of the sea border between Ireland and the rest of the EU.

If we are throwing in suggestions that will not happen, there is also the option of the UK becoming part of France and falling under their rule. And I will repeat, why would we decide to follow UK rules on trade agreements where we will have no say in it? Why would we tie ourselves to a country that cannot even get EU trade agreements to be replicated for itself for countries that are seen as allies (Japan)?