Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Lucy8080

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The Cooper bill that passed by one vote was backed by Lady Hermon- Independent Unionist M.P. for North Down. lol.

Interesting. How can she vote in the Commons? (I thought Tony Benn, Viscount Stansgate, had to renounce his title to sit in the Commons decades ago)

Anteayer

AllForIt wrote: »

Wrong.

The only possibility of civil unrest is No Brexit or a Soft Brexit.

NI is FOR going alone with the democratic outcome of the ref. It has never tried to undo Brext even when the majority of their country voted against. The DUP couldn't possibly take such a position when they themselves vehemently wish to say aligned with the UK. It would be incredible if the DUP/NI as a whole went against the democratic majority of the UK.

If you were taking about Scotland you point would make sense.

There isn't going to be a No Brexit and therefore threat of civil unrest from the tiny far right won't happen even if it happened, but it won't.

You mean the DUP is going along with the overall outcome of the UK wide vote. The nationalist community in NI has been completely voiceless in this which is extremely dangerous.

The DUP represents about 25% to 30% of the NI electorate and none of the nationalist community. In fact, it often takes the polar opposite point of view to the nationalist community across a wide range of issues.

The risk in NI is from Republic dissident groups.

Professor Moriarty

Laois_Man wrote: »

A “long” plan set of T&Cs would have to be enforceable upon her successor because she’s surely in her last 10 days in number 10 now...other than a period as acting PM

But there are some in the EU who just want shut of them now and it only takes 1 country to veto an extension

There are. Personally I'd take a hit on my wages if it meant we could move on and further integrate into the EU while they head off into the glorious future. But a lot of other people would lose their jobs or their businesses so I hope the 26 are solidly behind humouring the UK until the tantrum blows over.

serfboard

Anteayer wrote: »

The risk in NI is from Republic dissident groups.

Indeed. Who do you think is robbing all the ATMs around the border at the moment and what do you think that they are going to do with that money?

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The EU could do that, But I think they will offer her a long extension with terms and conditions.

Yes, this is precisely what they did last time - she requested an extension to May, and they said nope - you only get that if the WA passes, here is a smaller extension, now go and do your homework.


She will ask for an extension to May 22nd, and the EU will say no, you can crash out on the 12th of April, or you can take a long extension into 2021, run Euro elections and sort yourselves out in that time. No renegotiating the WA, though, thx, bye

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She will ask for an extension to May 22nd, and the EU will say no, you can crash out on the 12th of April, or you can take a long extension into 2021, run Euro elections and sort yourselves out in that time. No renegotiating the WA, though, thx, bye

To which the ERG will say: Brexit delayed is Brexit denied. If she accepts an extension until 2021, all hell will break loose.

Given that, and her instinct at all times to keep the Tory party together and placate the ERG, means she won’t accept a 2021 extension. Ergo crash-out.

Lucy8080

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting. How can she vote in the Commons? (I thought Tony Benn, Viscount Stansgate, had to renounce his title to sit in the Commons decades ago)

I'd only be guessing at some difference between hereditary peerages and honorary titles being somehow different when it comes to the rules. Genuinely don't know. Good question.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Interesting. How can she vote in the Commons? (I thought Tony Benn, Viscount Stansgate, had to renounce his title to sit in the Commons decades ago)

The amount of "Sirs" constantly mentioned in the commons and you pick on our Sylvia.

Following up on the Spotlight focus on the ERG abandoning the DUP, an Ipsos poll tomorrow puts many nails in the DUP coffin when it comes to the wisdom of its political strategy:

Just over one in three people in Britain hope that Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom, according to a new poll.

Anteayer

Lucy8080 wrote: »

I'd only be guessing at some difference between hereditary peerages and honorary titles being somehow different when it comes to the rules. Genuinely don't know. Good question.

Basically you can't be a Lord Temporal (sitting in the house of lords) and be elected to the HoC. You would have to formally renounce your peerage to do so and would be renouncing your title too. There's no entitlement to a dual mandate (to use Irish terminology)

However, since the reforms in 1999 only slightly over 90 Hereditary peers are actually entitled to sit in the Lords, so those who aren't are free to stand for a seat in the Commons. their hereditary title as it's unusable in the Lords anyway. You've also various honourary titles which don't grant any rights to a seat in the Lords. It wouldn't be reasonable to bar people who've just got what amounts to an honary title from partaking in the democratic system.

Capt'n Midnight

Lucy8080 wrote: »

The Cooper bill that passed by one vote was backed by Lady Hermon- Independent Unionist M.P. for North Down. lol.

She's the only person representing the 62.7% in NI who voted Remain.

The FPTP system has decimated the UUP.


Meanwhile at the other end of Unionism, those who think the DUP are a bunch of wishy washy liberals can always go with the TUV instead.

http://tuv.org.uk/about-tuv/

The measure of our success in exposing and opposing the present regime at Stormont is the venom which we draw from Sinn Fein

MPFGLB

Deleted User wrote: »

Following up on the Spotlight focus on the ERG abandoning the DUP, an Ipsos poll tomorrow puts many nails in the DUP coffin when it comes to the wisdom of its political strategy:

Just over one in three people in Britain hope that Northern Ireland remains in the United Kingdom, according to a new poll.

As much as that want NI to stay ...here in London everyone I know wish NI would buggar off

Strazdas

MPFGLB wrote: »

As much as that want NI to stay ...here in London everyone I know wish NI would buggar off

The article makes clear that NI is a small place that people in Britain have zero interest in.....most have never even set foot in it and never will

Anteayer

The DUP doesn't really understand that the British identity that they hold so dear is not really the same concept of Britishness that's understood by most English people.

It just so happens that the ERG and DUP alligned on a narrow range of issues to do with Brexit. I mean the DUP is quite strongly opposed to most of the Tory economic agenda, which includes fairly savage welfare cuts and public spending cuts generally.

On socioeconomic policies they'd actually have more in common with SF than they care to admit.

They're just ultra conservative on a few Christian right social topics, which seem to bleed over from the US deep south more than England and obviously then the issues around sectarianism are pretty unique to aspects of Northern Irish politics.

MPFGLB

Strazdas wrote: »

The article makes clear that NI is a small place that people in Britain have zero interest in.....most have never even set foot in it and never will

Well would you blame them...all they ever see are the DUP complaining and saying no to everything and having pointless marches in July and being against gay marriage and abortion a d generally living circa 1876

While the 'other side' are a group of shadowy guys with beards in leather jackets who may get a figari to kill them

MPFGLB

sabat wrote: »

After seeing that clip of Daniel Kawczynski (b. Warsaw!) and reading his wiki page, together with the information already in the public sphere of brexiteers' business interests, I am now 99% convinced that a large number of them are on a serious cash bonus to deliver brexit no matter what. His tone was just "off."

"Since February 2018, Kawczynski has been paid £6000 per month - roughly as much as his MP salary - by the The Electrum Group, a New York City-based investment, advisory and asset management firm with a focus on the natural resources sector owned by Thomas Kaplan."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kawczynski

The worst is David Davis ...former Brexit secretary...he has been meeting and accepting hugh sums from US food lobbyists ...Trying to get the chlorinated chicken into Tescos I suppose

BTW latest polls in 2019 put the remain voted 8% to 10% ahead of Leave (excluding undecided/unknowns)

Lucy8080

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

She's the only person representing the 62.7% in NI who voted Remain.

The FPTP system has decimated the UUP.


Meanwhile at the other end of Unionism, those who think the DUP are a bunch of wishy washy liberals can always go with the TUV instead.

http://tuv.org.uk/about-tuv/

Exactly. She's also representing the fearful business community of N.I. and the position that is least likely to damage the Union. Moderates on all sides up north will be cheering her on.

It's a funny result , though, in the context of a D.U.P./Cons gov.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting. How can she vote in the Commons? (I thought Tony Benn, Viscount Stansgate, had to renounce his title to sit in the Commons decades ago)

He had to renounce his peerage, and in consequence the title associated with his peerage.

Sylvia Hermon doesn't have a peerage, and never did. Her title indicates that she's the widow of a knight, not a peer in her own right.

Thomas_IV

Christy42 wrote: »

This is what happens when anyone who disagrees with your political opinion is branded a traitor. It removes all possibility of discourse and brings in the stuff like the MP assassination plot.

It needed to be stopped at source but JRM etc. were all happy to turn a blind eye yo such rhetoric when it suited them.

Quite right. The late Labour MP Mrs Cox who was murdered by a Neo-Nazi Brit was the first victim of Brexit even before BrexitRef took place and this murder was also a result of that aggressive rhetoric which incited and still incite many people and more so among the Brexiteers themselves.

Sure, JRM is among the worse of them all, but let's not forget about Farage in the first place and Boris Johnson who joined him. The prospect of either Johnson or even JRM (the latter more unlikely) to become leader of the Tory Party is in my view the bottom line of the whole development.

As recent developments since yesterday are in process, there might be a Chance to avoid a hard Brexit which is already making Brexit extremists also among the backbenchers furious. For that reason and also what happened recently, the Police in the UK are already warning MPs to not inflame tensions.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47806365

Brexit: Police warn MPs and campaigners not to inflame tensions

I anticipate that the EU will grant the UK an extension for the exit date to 22nd May 2019 cos the EU isn't interested in a hard Brexit either. So, there is still hope that in the end, common sense will prevail.

The possibility of a BrexitRef2 is also growing as the EU would take that as the reason to grant the Extension of the Exit date, alternatively it could be done on the reason of a snap UK GE but that wouldn't solve the problem. It might bring the DUP away from being the pressure group on the Tory Party though which I would very much appreciate.

A BrexitRef2 is the better way forward cos that would bring the matter to the people to decide for a second and final time what it is to be. Some who voted for leave in 2016 might already had second thoughts and would vote for remain in a BrexitRef2 cos in contrast to 2016, the people know by now what they would have to face. That wasn't that clear enough for many in 2016. But more important than this would be that every one who is for Remain gets up and go to the Polling Station to cast his / her vote to gain a majority for Remain.

Peregrinus

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I anticipate that the EU will grant the UK an extension for the exit date to 22nd May 2019 cos the EU isn't interested in a hard Brexit either. So, there is still hope that in the end, common sense will prevail.

If the UK Parliament approves the negotiated deal before 12 April I'd be cautiously optimistic that they'd get an extension to 22 May, even though that still presents risks for the EU. But I don't think Parliament is going to do that.

If they don't approve the negotiated deal before 12 April, then I doubt very much that they will get an extension to 22 May. But they will probably be offered a longer extension, at any rate if they have a half-way credible plan for progressing towards a deliverable Brexit which commands a majority in Parliament. That will be conditional on them participating in the EU Parliament elections; they are already shaping up to accept that condition, which I think tells us the way the wind is blowing.

Thomas_IV wrote: »

The possibility of a BrexitRef2 is also growing as the EU would take that as the reason to grant the Extension of the Exit date, alternatively it could be done on the reason of a snap UK GE but that wouldn't solve the problem. It might bring the DUP away from being the pressure group on the Tory Party though which I would very much appreciate.

A BrexitRef2 is the better way forward cos that would bring the matter to the people to decide for a second and final time what it is to be. Some who voted for leave in 2016 might already had second thoughts and would vote for remain in a BrexitRef2 cos in contrast to 2016, the people know by now what they would have to face. That wasn't that clear enough for many in 2016. But more important than this would be that every one who is for Remain gets up and go to the Polling Station to cast his / her vote to gain a majority for Remain.

The EU's concern is that there should be a deal which commands support in Parliament. That deal will in no way be harder than the current negotiated deal; it is likely to be somewhat softer. The EU would have a strong, strong preference for a deal comprising (a) the Withdrawal Agreement exactly as negotiated, plus (b) the Political Declaration, anended to target a softer Brexit in the future relationship than May has been targetting up to now. At most, the EU would accept the most formal and technical amendments to the WA needed to keep it consistent with any changes to the Pol Dec.

If Parliament feels the need to hold a second referendum as a condition of getting buy-in from both major parties, or to secure public approval for the new deal, or to impose a mandate on a possibly reluctant fugure government to implement the deal, or if they want to hold a general election for those purposes, the EU would be happy to accommodate this. But they won't drive it; it will remain a UK decision to hold a second referendum or a GE.

But the EU would be less inclined to accommodate a second referendum which would offer a no-deal option; although the UK has the right to leave with no deal, the EU would regard it as an unfriendly and unhelpful act, and wouldn't want to be seen to do anything to facilitate it.

Enzokk

Here is a very good thread looking at the spurious argument that leave voters knew what they were voting and voting leave means no single market and includes no-deal.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1113547733300842497

That should dispel the myth about what people knew when they voted, but I fear it will not.

I will point out this one tweet which dispels the myth about people wanting to leave without a deal and knowing that this is what they wanted at the time of the referendum.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1113560951708639232

This shows that even leave voters were convinced that the UK's participation and membership of the EU single market was never a doubt or problem for them as they were repeatedly told there is no threat of the UK not trading with that same market.

54and56

Laois_Man wrote: »

A “long” plan set of T&Cs would have to be enforceable upon her successor because she’s surely in her last 10 days in number 10 now...other than a period as acting PM

But there are some in the EU who just want shut of them now and it only takes 1 country to veto an extension

Anything TM agrees with the EU is binding on the UK govt regardless of who is PM. These are country to country agreements not person to person agreements.

I know there is a political reality that if someone with a completely different view on Brexit replaces TM as PM that person may well wish to take the UK in a direction different to what was previously agreed to by TM but the other side will be able to pull out the agreement and say we're not changing what's been agreed a the WA.

Enzokk

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I anticipate that the EU will grant the UK an extension for the exit date to 22nd May 2019 cos the EU isn't interested in a hard Brexit either. So, there is still hope that in the end, common sense will prevail.

I agree with most of your post but this one. The EU has already set out the extension that the UK can get from them and they have also set out the conditions to it. The EU is tired of negotiating with Theresa May I suspect and will probably feel they have reached the end of what they can negotiating with her.

That is why the conditions for extension is clear, pass her deal this week and get an extension to 22 May to pass the legislation required. If parliament doesn't pass her deal then leave on the 12th April. However if a new plan is brought forward by the UK, i.e. new general election or new referendum or even new Tory PM then a longer extension can be discussed but only if the UK participates in the EU elections.

The EU will not allow May to drag this out to beyond a date where the UK cannot participate in the EU elections but ask for potential extensions after that time, or use that as a means to pass her deal. She will be gone either way very soon and if she blackmails her successor with her deal that they fundamentally disagree with it is actually better to deal with no-deal for the EU.

Peregrinus

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Anything TM agrees with the EU is binding on the UK govt regardless of who is PM. These are country to country agreements not person to person agreements.

I know there is a political reality that if someone with a completely different view on Brexit replaces TM as PM that person may well wish to take the UK in a direction different to what was previously agreed to by TM but the other side will be able to pull out the agreement and say we're not changing what's been agreed a the WA.

The WA, once ratified, is binding on the UK (and the EU, of course) regardless of who is in government.

But most of the disagreement in the UK is about the future relationshiop (Norway? Common Market 2.0? WTO?) and that's not addressed in the WA; that's adressed in the Political Declarationl, which (a) is pretty sketchy, and (b) is politically, but not legally, binding.

While the EU takes its political commitments extremely seriously and will work in good faith to carry them into effect and turn them into legal instruments, more than a few of those on the more Brexity side of the debate in the UK have made clear their disdain for "merely politically binding" commitments, and so we can't exclude the possibility of, e.g, a future Tory government under a Brexiteer Prime Minister disliking the term of a Political Declaration agreed with the Labour Party/pointing to a soft Brexit, and working to frustrate its implementation.

And that would certainly cause problems. The UK would still be legally bound by the WA (including the backstop) but the mechanisms in the WA aren't designed to work for ever; they're supposed to be superseded by new, permanent arrnangements to be negotiated between the EU and the UK. If a satisfactory new arrangement isn't negotiated the interim measures in the WA will start to show their limitations, I suspect.

One reason why a second referendum might be favoured it that it increases political pressure on future governments to implement the Pol Dec. If a supposedly advisory referendum on Brexit creates a Will Of The People which cannot be questioned, resisted or reconsidered, then there should be a similar mandate requiring future governments to honour the resultss of a referendum approving the deal.

Enzokk

Seems that May is up to her old tricks again,

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1113703828258533376

Basically The Times are reporting that she hasn't budged on the customs union and her opposition to it. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems that May is up to her old tricks again,

https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/1113703828258533376

Basically The Times are reporting that she hasn't budged on the customs union and her opposition to it. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck...

Many people smelt a rat the moment she made her "offer". She doesn't do compromise and the Tories are her sole priority. The Corbyn thing may well be a cheap stunt on her part.

woohoo!!!

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is a very good thread looking at the spurious argument that leave voters knew what they were voting and voting leave means no single market and includes no-deal.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1113547733300842497

That should dispel the myth about what people knew when they voted, but I fear it will not.

I will point out this one tweet which dispels the myth about people wanting to leave without a deal and knowing that this is what they wanted at the time of the referendum.

https://twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/1113560951708639232

This shows that even leave voters were convinced that the UK's participation and membership of the EU single market was never a doubt or problem for them as they were repeatedly told there is no threat of the UK not trading with that same market.

The led by donkeys twitter handle would surely stick such up on their billboards

Water John

We'll know today IWT if May has entered these talks, in good faith.

The is possibly one of the biggest problems, tying the PD to any future PM. could the PD be upgraded in some way so it is the only acceptable template for the future relationship?

Hurrache

Strazdas wrote: »

Many people smelt a rat the moment she made her "offer". She doesn't do compromise and the Tories are her sole priority. The Corbyn thing may well be a cheap stunt on her part.

James Felton put it succinctly

https://twitter.com/JimMFelton/status/1113497905099419648

prawnsambo

Water John wrote: »

We'll know today IWT if May has entered these talks, in good faith.

The is possibly one of the biggest problems, tying the PD to any future PM. could the PD be upgraded in some way so it is the only acceptable template for the future relationship?

No parliament can bind a future paliament. So it can't be done that way. And it will take a long time for the PD to become all grown up and an international treaty, so there's a hiatus there that could be exploited by a future government to change its direction. I'm not actually sure why TM just doesn't tell Corbyn what he wants to hear, secure in the knowledge that she (or any future PM) can change it at any time in the future. The only motivation I can see is that she's stubbornly wedded to her deal and any compromise will look like defeat. To Labour. Oh my days!