Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

zapitastas

judeboy101 wrote: »

They are a soft unionist party, you can be unionist and not be anti gay/abortion/etc. It amazes me how many on this thread think that the alliance are somehow not? They have never advocated a united Ireland but rather the current status of northern Ireland. They have massive issues with the gfa and their leadership going all the way back have ties to British establishment.

They are non alligned in that they don't advocate for independence nor the union.

The big issue in the next couple of years will if course be brexit. That and another Scottish independence referendum. The future of the union is far from certain

Dyr

black forest wrote: »

A very nice and easy analysis of LE19 in Northern Ireland at Sluggerotoole. The graphics show exactly the different wandering of voters between the parties. There can be no doubt that the center parties were the overall winners feeding from both sides.

https://twitter.com/sluggerotoole/status/1125175840218550272?s=21


All the graphics can be found directly in the article:

https://sluggerotoole.com/2019/05/06/centre-parties-have-captured-a-significant-number-of-seats-from-both-nationalists-and-unionists-at-the-local-elections/

There is a very interesting interactive map as well:

https://public.tableau.com/profile/salmonofdata#!/vizhome/shared/MCW3CG2Q5

Sluggerotoole became a joke years ago, it's mostly just Mick Fealty looking for any chance to soapbox agin SF, usually displaying an utter ignorance of politics in the republic in the process.

Enzokk

judeboy101 wrote: »

They are a soft unionist party, you can be unionist and not be anti gay/abortion/etc. It amazes me how many on this thread think that the alliance are somehow not? They have never advocated a united Ireland but rather the current status of northern Ireland. They have massive issues with the gfa and their leadership going all the way back have ties to British establishment.

That is not what most literature says though. They are nonsectarian, pro-european and liberal. Now you are right that you don't have to oppose SSM if you are a unionist, at the same time if you had been to a church service in Ireland during both the SSM and abortion referendum campaigns you would have noticed that the Catholic Church shares their view with the DUP.

You have to wonder though, the neutral party that favour neither Irish Unity nor staying in the UK, what will they choose when their choice may come down to staying in the EU?

A Dub in Glasgo

prinzeugen wrote: »

More voters in Scotland voted for Brexit than the SNP in any election in history.

I am Scottish and the SNP does NOT represent me! The SNP only have 36.9%. Not majority.

They know they are done and are having one last hurrah before the SNP is back in the political wilderness of the 80s!

Represent you in what? What % are you talking about? What consitiuency are you represented by?

The SNP are not done and will only be done when independence happens

FrancieBrady

Bambi wrote: »

Sluggerotoole became a joke years ago, it's mostly just Mick Fealty looking for any chance to soapbox agin SF, usually displaying an utter ignorance of politics in the republic in the process.

The offensive is on, and the narrative is anything but Unionism migrating away from it's 3 main parties.

As these are local elections I assume it is a case of moderate unionists lending their vote to send a message.

The EU elections will give a better read on whether it is anything more.

road_high

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Represent you in what? What % are you talking about? What consitiuency are you represented by?

The SNP are not done and will only be done when independence happens

SNP are by far the largest Scottish party and will remain so. It’s fantasy to suggest otherwise

road_high

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Represent you in what? What % are you talking about? What consitiuency are you represented by?

The SNP are not done and will only be done when independence happens

SNP are by far the largest Scottish party and will remain so. It’s fantasy to suggest otherwise

Capt'n Midnight

Since there won't be any real movement in Labour - Tory talks anytime soon here's a little diversion.

Brexit? Danes Have Seen This Show, and It Doesn’t End Well
Comparing the hubris of 1864 Denmark with England.



BTW like Scotland , Norway used to ruled by a country to the south but still kept it's own laws and identity. The split of Denmark-Norway was dissimilar to Brexit though as Norway left Denmark's control but ended up with Sweden for a century until a referendum in 1905.


Going a little further of topic, the Scottish-English thing also happens in Scandinavia.
Arn: The Knight Templar is a Scandinavian film, it's a little like Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, a semi historical epic set in the crusades, the longer version includes the first major battle in what was the setting up of Sweden from it's southern overlords.

eire4

road_high wrote: »

SNP are by far the largest Scottish party and will remain so. It’s fantasy to suggest otherwise

No question that is the case as things stand whether someone likes it or not they are the dominant force politically in Scotland. Now if they do push for and get and win a second independence referendum that might change in an independent Scotland but for now they are without a doubt the dominant force in Scotland politically.

briany

I'd love to know what goes on in these supposed talks between Labour and the Conservatives. The proposals are pretty straightforward. Is it just like on the Simpsons where the kids go,

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

But replace "Can we have a pool, dad?" with "Can we have a second referendum, Theresa?"

Because they have weeks of talks, but there isn't really that much to discuss, is there? It's not as if they're meticulously trying to piece together some innovative third-way solution, either. I just imagine it as hours of silent staring with a clock ticking loudly in the background, before walking out and telling the press that talks were, "Difficult, but constructive."

Tell me how

briany wrote: »

I'd love to know what goes on in these supposed talks between Labour and the Conservatives. The proposals are pretty straightforward. Is it just like on the Simpsons where the kids go,

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

But replace "Can we have a pool, dad?" with "Can we have a second referendum, Theresa?"

Because they have weeks of talks, but there isn't really that much to discuss, is there? It's not as if they're meticulously trying to piece together some innovative third-way solution, either. I just imagine it as hours of silent staring with a clock ticking loudly in the background, before walking out and telling the press that talks were, "Difficult, but constructive."

I think you are off by a bit there. I think the talks at this stage are more about, "How we can convince everyone we don't need a second referendum."

To tie it in with your analogy. The Dad isn't even going to consider a pool, he just wants the children to think he did. He might go the "go ask your Mother" route to maybe look like he tried.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

I'd love to know what goes on in these supposed talks between Labour and the Conservatives. The proposals are pretty straightforward. Is it just like on the Simpsons where the kids go,

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

"Can we have a pool, dad?"

"No."

But replace "Can we have a pool, dad?" with "Can we have a second referendum, Theresa?"

Because they have weeks of talks, but there isn't really that much to discuss, is there? It's not as if they're meticulously trying to piece together some innovative third-way solution, either. I just imagine it as hours of silent staring with a clock ticking loudly in the background, before walking out and telling the press that talks were, "Difficult, but constructive."

You are almost right, I think replace second referendum with Customs Union. I don't think Labour will commit to a second referendum while Corbyn is leader. He still believes in unicorns.

There is a lot to discuss as May has said she will leave her post once Brexit is enacted, so how does Labour guarantee that their current negotiations will not be ignored by the next Tory leader? She cannot bind a new leader in following a course that they might not agree with, unless it is a treaty like the WA. The rest is open for change and even if it is in the Political Declaration it is not guaranteed. So Labour needs to get concrete guarantees and they cannot get it unless she stays as leader. She is not staying as leader so she cannot guarantee anything to Labour.

briany

Tell me how wrote: »

I think you are off by a bit there. I think the talks at this stage are more about, "How we can convince everyone we don't need a second referendum."

If that was followed by "....because we've got this great deal that everyone can get behind.", it'd sound a lot better. As it is, it sounds more like, "How can we pull a fast one?"

Enzokk wrote: »

You are almost right, I think replace second referendum with Customs Union. I don't think Labour will commit to a second referendum while Corbyn is leader. He still believes in unicorns.

There is a lot to discuss as May has said she will leave her post once Brexit is enacted, so how does Labour guarantee that their current negotiations will not be ignored by the next Tory leader? She cannot bind a new leader in following a course that they might not agree with, unless it is a treaty like the WA. The rest is open for change and even if it is in the Political Declaration it is not guaranteed. So Labour needs to get concrete guarantees and they cannot get it unless she stays as leader. She is not staying as leader so she cannot guarantee anything to Labour.

I know this'll probably sound naive, but here goes anyway - all Labour have to say, in a deal scenario, is that if the deal is reneged upon, then they will no longer honour their commitments either. That's sort of how deals and contracts tend to go, I thought. Of course May can't guarantee that the next Conservative leader won't act in bad faith, just as Corbyn can't guarantee the next Labour leader won't, but to take that knowledge to the nth degree means nothing could ever get signed between them.

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

I know this'll probably sound naive, but here goes anyway - all Labour have to say, in a deal scenario, is that if the deal is reneged upon, then they will no longer honour their commitments either. That's sort of how deals and contracts tend to go, I thought. Of course May can't guarantee that the next Conservative leader won't act in bad faith, just as Corbyn can't guarantee the next Labour leader won't, but to take that knowledge to the nth degree means nothing could ever get signed between them.

The problem Labour has is that the Tories still have a very slight majority so they are not needed for anything else other than Brexit. If the next leader reneges on the deal what can Labour do? Vote against the government? They do that already. That is why they are looking for legal guarantees and as far as I know there is none May can give them as the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't specify the future relationship. That is done in the next phase and the Political Declaration is not legally binding.

briany

Enzokk wrote: »

The problem Labour has is that the Tories still have a very slight majority so they are not needed for anything else other than Brexit. If the next leader reneges on the deal what can Labour do? Vote against the government? They do that already. That is why they are looking for legal guarantees and as far as I know there is none May can give them as the Withdrawal Agreement doesn't specify the future relationship. That is done in the next phase and the Political Declaration is not legally binding.

If the Conservatives renege on a deal with Labour, it makes it harder for them to cut deals in future, and the Conservatives are already in a precarious parliamentary position. They're both a minority government and internally fractured. The net effect would be that if a new leader came in to try and wreck what had been agreed, the new leader would not only unite Labour against the Conservatives, but potentially split the Conservatives wide open and take the Brexit process back to Christmas 2018, if that.

Tell me how

briany wrote: »

If that was followed by "....because we've got this great deal that everyone can get behind.", it'd sound a lot better. As it is, it sounds more like, "How can we pull a fast one?"

That is what it is.

Theresa May coming out after the local elections to say that it was a sign that people just wanted them to get on with Brexit and that they were going to talk to Labour about how to do that was the public version of "we need to do whatever it takes to get this over the line or it is going to be taken from us".

Enzokk

briany wrote: »

If the Conservatives renege on a deal with Labour, it makes it harder for them to cut deals in future, and the Conservatives are already in a precarious parliamentary position. They're both a minority government and internally fractured. The net effect would be that if a new leader came in to try and wreck what had been agreed, the new leader would not only unite Labour against the Conservatives, but potentially split the Conservatives wide open and take the Brexit process back to Christmas 2018, if that.

I cannot recall any previous deals that the party leadership had to do before because the majority party needed the minority to pass legislation. This is a unique situation because of FPTP and it will be a rarity in the future as well. The UK system is adversarial and you see that in the way the press reports on politics and the way the politicians behave in parliament. It is not about working together but showing how your policy is great and your opponent's is ridiculous.

That is why Labour needs legal guarantees, because May will stand there with cap in hand on Brexit one moment, but in the next sentence she will without shame call out Labour on their handling of the GFC in 2009.

An Ciarraioch

At least the UK is united on one aspect of Brexit!

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1125747803077083145

That's quite an achievement, to upset both sides of the argument and please no one, I wonder who the 8% were though?

briany

Deleted User wrote: »

That's quite an achievement, to upset both sides of the argument and please no one, I wonder who the 8% were though?

People who just wanted to get away from the fellow with the clipboard.

Leroy42

It really looks like TM will be gone sometime in the summer.

Johnson and Raab both, apparently, going to stand on the basis of renegotiation with EU.

Little real benefit, or indeed requirement, for Labour to offer support at this stage.

The really worrying thing is the rise of Brexit Party, which is akin to UKIP which scared the Tories so much they started this fiasco in the 1st place.

Will the Tories push for No Deal on the basis that it will at least cut the legs from under Farage?

20silkcut

Just reflecting on the whole will of the people debate, I’m sure if there was a referendum to cut the tax rate to zero there is a very good chance it would pass. I’m sure I could safely say it is probably the will of a majority of people to have a zero tax rate. Sometimes the will of the people just has to be ignored or means nothing.
Brexit, if it even still is the will of the people, is in the same bracket.
The Brexit argument is like saying we will cut taxes to zero and keep all our services.
It is up there with FF car tax abolishment in 1977.
The will of the people spoke then. And it meant jack sh1t. Cars still have to be taxed.

Leroy42

Not ignored. Just dont ever ask the question.

If you ask the question, you need to follow through.

But there is nothing to say that, like our upcoming divorce ref, once the true implications are known, they cannot ask a more detailed version of the question.

Hopefully the English will continue on with these wise political choices and replace Theresa May with Boris Johnson. When he is shown up for the populist, duplicitous opportunist that he is, hopefully they'll move on to JRM. Bit by bit all these "heroes" of the Brexiteers will be exposed as the false prophets which they've always been.

The worst thing that can happen is that they be allowed to take up permanent residency as some noble patriotic Paisley-style opposition to government treachery.

20silkcut

At the risk of slightly de railing the thread, maybe some of ye might remember , but was car tax actually abolished in 1977 like FF promised? Or was it fudged?? How long did it last before it was re-introduced?? I was born in 1978 so it was before my time. Can’t find anything on the net about it.

Zubeneschamali

20silkcut wrote: »

At the risk of slightly de railing the thread, maybe some of ye might remember , but was car tax actually abolished in 1977 like FF promised?

I don't remember anything about car tax, the big one was rates.


They abolished local taxes and made all the local authorities dependent on Fianna Fail central Government for funds.

20silkcut

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't remember anything about car tax, the big one was rates.


They abolished local taxes and made all the local authorities dependent on Fianna Fail central Government for funds.

They promised it anyway

lawred2

20silkcut wrote: »

They promised it anyway

On cars up to 16HP?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Back on topic, please.

Seth Brundle

According to today's Indo, TM is looking at a Brexit by July 1st before MEPs take their seats (or if they can't meet that target then August 1st before MPs take their holidays)...
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/brexit-theresa-may-targets-july-1-for-uk-exit-but-tories-more-focused-on-resignation-date-38090765.html