Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think Scottish voters are so thick as to vote in an election primarily based on their perception of someone who isn't a candidate in the election, and cannot play any role in the government which will emerge from that election. I admit I have never lived in Scotland but I have lived in other democracies where there are separate national and regional/state elections, and generally the voters seem to have no difficult at all in distinguishing the issues and personalities that are relevant to the different elections.

Nicola Sturgeon represents which constituency in Scotland in Westminster?

General election 2017: BBC hosts debate with six Scottish leaders

BBC Scotland's live election debate from Edinburgh will now feature six party leaders.

The BBC had originally announced a 90-minute debate featuring Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale, Willie Rennie and Patrick Harvie.

However, following confirmation of the number of candidates standing in the election, UKIP Scottish leader David Coburn will now join them.

The debate will take place at 19:30 on Sunday 21 May.

It will be the first Scottish leaders' debate of the General Election campaign and will be presented by Sarah Smith and Jackie Bird.

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy; it doesn't have to be due to either May or Davidson.

For the reasons already given I doubt that Davidson has much to do with the Tory success in Scotland in the 2017 general election. And, for reasons which are obvious, I also doubt that May had to do with it.

So what did? Well, I think it's notable that the swing to the Tories, 13.7%, almost exactly matched the swing away from the SNP, 13.1%. I think the factor was Brexit. Some former supporters of Scottish independence felt that it was a less attractive prospect if rump UK would be outside the EU, and so abandoned the SNP. But pro-EU unionists did not switch to the SNP; they prioritised the British union over the European Union. And of course it was not at that stage clear what a complete pig's breakfast May and the Tories were about to make of the Brexit project.

See my link above, Davidson was the voice for the Conservatives in Scotland like Sturgeon was for the SNP. Just because they are not in Westminster doesn't mean they are not in charge of their campaigns for their countries.

As for why the SNP lost votes, there were a lot of influences on why they lost 13%. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact they kept on talking about a new independence referendum when the circumstances did not change since the last one. Now in the subsequent years there has been a change and so people seem to have more of an appetite for independence again.

Also, Scotland had a vote of 38% to leave the EU. If you accept that most of that vote went to the Conservatives with the collapse of UKIP then there is still about 10% of leavers out there. Maybe Labour sitting on the fence took some of those as well.

Borderhopper

lawred2 wrote: »

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

Dan O'Brien is a dose.

Did you mean "no one is NOT stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head."

Either way - that's not exactly a credible basis from which to set out a negotiation position is it? That you need to prepare and cater for the lunatic excesses of your counter negotiating party?

At the end of it all - while no deal Brexit is bad for Ireland - it's infinitely worse for the UK and the Tories are on record as saying even without a backstop they still wouldn't vote for the WA so why does Dan think Ireland and the EU should compromise everything for nothing in return?

What was his alternative?

No, I meant it as written as a glib summation of the EU approach to the WA negotiation.

His opinion was that a time limit should’ve been offered to May’s team, but it’s too late now as the EUs position has forced the UK into a corner and enabled the rise of the current regime. Never mind that it’s UK painting the floor with red lines that formed the EUs approach.

Personally, I think the EU and Ireland can’t give on the WA, even if it means the return of border infrastructure. There are more issues at stake than just Brexit. US, China etc are watching closely, not just to asset strip UK, but also for the EUs response to pig headed negotiating. And I say this as an Irish citizen in the north.

Enzokk

Dominic Raab showing why he is not fit for office as he is caught out in an interview,

https://twitter.com/DanielHewittITV/status/1155759804968833024?s=20

So the EU has not been flexible in not shelving the backstop. When asked what flexibility the UK has shown he mentions they have only had a week so there is still time to show that flexibility. They have only been asking the EU to drop the backstop a week. What a charlatan and fraud.

DOCARCH

Enzokk wrote: »

They have only been asking the EU to drop the backstop a week. What a charlatan and fraud.

The 'undemocratic backstop'....that the UK proposed and the EU accepted.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Dominic Raab showing why he is not fit for office as he is caught out in an interview,


twitter link removed


So the EU has not been flexible in not shelving the backstop. When asked what flexibility the UK has shown he mentions they have only had a week so there is still time to show that flexibility. They have only been asking the EU to drop the backstop a week. What a charlatan and fraud.

Stunning.

Reminds me a bit of a teenager caught out in a lie. 'Were you smoking'? no, uh, uhm...

I too now notice that the backstop is no longer the 'backstop' but is now referred to by all UK cabinet ministers/ Brexiteers as the 'undemocratic backstop', as pointed out by someone here the last few days. Obviously they are looking to get the Brexity public onside with them in opposition to the backstop by referring to it as 'undemocratic'.

The Undemocratic EU, the Undemocratic Backstop. Spin, spin, spin. Lies, lies, lies. Unashamed and unabashed bo1locks.

Getting very annoyed with the new UK government to be honest. They are a disgrace.

ISOP

J Mysterio wrote: »

Stunning.



Reminds me a bit of a teenager caught out in a lie. 'Were you smoking'? no, uh, uhm...


I too now notice that the backstop is no longer the 'backstop' but is now referred to by all UK cabinet ministers/ Brexiteers as the 'undemocratic backstop', as pointed out by someone here the last few days. Obviously they are looking to get the Brexity public onside with them in opposition to the backstop by referring to it as 'undemocratic'.



The Undemocratic EU, the Undemocratic Backstop. Spin, spin, spin. Lies, lies, lies. Unashamed and unabashed bo1locks.


Getting very annoyed with the new UK government to be honest. They are a disgrace.

the undemocratic backstop which the UK came up with it. It has been drilled into them now to drive this message at every opportunity. I can't actually take much more of this ****e

lawred2

ISOP wrote: »

the undemocratic backstop which the UK came up with it. It has been drilled into them now to drive this message at every opportunity. I can't actually take much more of this ****e

the whole thing is being clearly stage managed by some entity that has purchased these shameless politicians

Enzokk

Just as an aside to the conversation on Scotland, here we have Ruth Davidson being firm that she is not on board with no-deal.


I won’t support no-deal Brexit, says defiant Ruth Davidson

Ruth Davidson has issued a defiant challenge to Boris Johnson, pledging she will refuse to back a no-deal Brexit before his first visit to Scotland as prime minister.

The leader of the Scottish Conservatives is expected to meet Johnson in Edinburgh on Monday, after the prime minister begins his trip north with a visit on the west coast.

What I find interesting is that she is safe in that she can oppose Johnson for the very fact that she is not an MP so doesn't have to sign up to the no-deal pledge that would likely follow if there is a general election. Also, she is not happy with the route the government is taking but she is happy to sit behind their resources.

She also underlined her opposition to the creation of a separate Scottish Conservative party, which some supporters have suggested is the only way to consolidate the gains that she has achieved in Scotland against the ramifications of Johnson’s Brexit strategy.

I would have thought if she was so opposed to her Tory Party position she would be happy to go on her own, but it seems like she is more in tune with the party message than she pretends to be to the electorate.

lawred2

Saw an interview with Ruth Davidson during the run up to Boris' elevation to top deviant - she hadn't spoken to him - he had made zero effort to engage with her, had made no plans to nor shown any inclination to ever do so and she seemed less than enthusiastic about following up with him...

It's clear that Boris is SE England man and that's all he's playing to.

I wonder did he ever ring her?

He'll need her and her colleagues votes!

BobbyBobberson

BBC news dominated by No Deal headlines this morning. Stories from Vauxhall, CBI IfG all leading the news.

fash

DOCARCH wrote: »

The 'undemocratic backstop'....that the UK proposed and the EU accepted.

I'm thinking the plan is to move to a " let's see what the people of NI want".

Stop moaning ffs

fash wrote: »

I'm thinking the plan is to move to a " let's see what the people of NI want".

I’m seeing that pop up now and then.
They can’t give NI a referendum on the backstop (though they should). You’ll have massive outcry in Britain saying ‘how come they get effectively a second referendum on brexit and we don’t?’

J Mysterio

Our Irish-American friends are increasing the pressure, per IT:

US/UK trade deal ‘impossible’ if peace accord undermined, warns letter

A committee set up in the United States to protect the Belfast Agreement has warned the incoming Northern Ireland Secretary that a future US-UK trade deal will be “all but impossible” if the peace accord is undermined.

The bipartisan group, which includes five former US ambassadors to Ireland, two former state governors and foreign policy experts including Nancy Soderberg, said it was “deeply concerned” at UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s rejection of the backstop last week.

“We remain deeply concerned given the new prime minister’s recent statement in the Commons that there can be no Irish backstop in the withdrawal agreement, even one with a time limit,” states the letter to Julian Smith that has been seen by The Irish Times. “We view the belief that alternative arrangements can easily solve the problem of the Irish Border with a healthy scepticism as do many experts.”

Noting house speaker Nancy Pelosi’s comments to The Irish Times last week that Congress will not sign off on a trade deal if the peace agreement is undermined, the letter states that a trade deal will be “all but impossible”.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

Our Irish-American friends are increasing the pressure, per IT:

US/UK trade deal ‘impossible’ if peace accord undermined, warns letter

How much of this is a genuine concern for Ireland and NI and how much of this is internal US intra party politics with the purpose to frustrate the Trumpster and his love for Boris and the best trade deal ever?

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

How much of this is a genuine concern for Ireland and NI and how much of this is internal US intra party politics with the purpose to frustrate the Trumpster and his love for Boris and the best trade deal ever?

The support for Ireland is one of the few issues that seems to bridge the normal partisan politics in the US, however we will need to see if that holds true once Trump gets more involved in any trade negotiations.

Laois_Man

J Mysterio wrote: »

Our Irish-American friends are increasing the pressure, per IT:

US/UK trade deal ‘impossible’ if peace accord undermined, warns letter

Johnson won't care - he's only interested in what voters will believe on a soon to be election day!

Leroy42

There will be a deal with the US, I think I recall seeing that Australia were ready for a deal as soon as the UK exits.

And they will be sold as great achievements, a poke in the eye of the EU and proof that 'Project Fear' was a nonsense.

But what media outlet is actually going to do any deep dive on the agreements? C4 maybe.

Any interviews will be dominated by people like Raab etc claiming that it was done, they said it couldn't be done, Brexit is a success blah blah. But at no stage will anybody actually ask how it is better than what they had before.

robinph

lawred2 wrote: »

How much of this is a genuine concern for Ireland and NI and how much of this is internal US intra party politics with the purpose to frustrate the Trumpster and his love for Boris and the best trade deal ever?

I doubt that the US population particularly cares one way or the other about a trade deal with the UK or anything that Trump might do or say regarding it so don't think it has much weight regarding anti/ pro Trump issues.

It does show that some politicians in the US are paying attention and care about the UK not being too much of an idiot and doing something damaging to Ireland.

DOCARCH

Leroy42 wrote: »

There will be a deal with the US, I think I recall seeing that Australia were ready for a deal as soon as the UK exits.

Any deals done that quickly is unlikely to be favorable to the UK!

The UK may accept deals for the optics.

Lackadaisical

Well Boris may have miscalculated too by wedding the UK to the Trump side of US politics as the trade deal is now US domestic political issue.

Also if Trump starts to go into decline, they're faced with being tarnished by the whole thing. It could even become more of a mess if any UK based actors in the big data space show up in trying to influence US elections.

Leroy42

DOCARCH wrote: »

Any deals done that quickly is unlikely to be favorable to the UK!

The UK may accept deals for the optics.

That is exactly what they will do.

Headline in the Express:

"Shock to EU as UK lands MASSIVE US Trade Deal"

Trump talked about increasing trade 4 or 5 times. But he is talking about US trade, not UK trade.

And nobody will actually pay attention. Headlines are all that matters.

Oafley Jones

DOCARCH wrote: »

Any deals done that quickly is unlikely to be favorable to the UK!

The UK may accept deals for the optics.

America didn't get to where it is on the back of friendly negotiation. There will be no room for sentiment when it comes to a trade agreement. Regardless of who's running the show, expect the UK to get absolutely rode.

Beechwoodspark

Oafley Jones wrote: »

America didn't get to where it is on the back of friendly negotiation. There will be no room for sentiment when it comes to a trade agreement. Regardless of who's running the show, expect the UK to get absolutely rode.

And all with a big smile and back slapping from Uncle Sam

ArmaniJeanss

The UK may get a somewhat better deal from the USA than we think.

If the USA is playing a long game then it would be in their interests to be fair and reasonable. It would cast a shadow on the existing narrative that being a member of the EU bloc helps European countries in their negotiations with the USA. Whether they are clever enough to play such a long game is a question though. Short-termism may override it.

Kermit.de.frog

I am quite annoyed that the SINDO gives ammunition to people like this

https://twitter.com/KateHoeyMP/status/1155755019846787072

I'll refrain from saying what I really think of that "newspaper".

J Mysterio

lawred2 wrote: »

How much of this is a genuine concern for Ireland and NI and how much of this is internal US intra party politics with the purpose to frustrate the Trumpster and his love for Boris and the best trade deal ever?

I think a great deal of it is genuine concern for Ireland and the GFA.
Americans roots are of great importance to them. You regularly hear Americans say 'I'm Irish' or 'I'm Italian' or 'German' or 'Polish' or whatever. They see themselves that way, and why shouldn't they? They follow cultural events and holidays and other observances and eat their national food etc. All this Trump anti-immigration stuff is reasonably new, America is a country of immigrants.

The US were of great import in the GFA and it was considered to be a groundbreaking international agreement to find a solution for peace in NI. They won't want this to be unilaterally swatted to one side by the British having a fit and yearning for empire once more. Irish Americans are of great significance in American politics and society and have quite a spread of influence throughout. When they say they won't stand for it, they mean it, and thank god for that. Goes to show - again - that Irish diplomacy is huge. British diplomacy? Not so good.

reslfj

VinLieger wrote: »

I don't think so, the French opposed an extension to try and force No Deal, since they think it will bring the UK back to the table in a position of weakness if not desperation.

If or when it is believed that it will end in a 'No Deal' Brexit anyway - more EU27 members are beginning to think "Let's get it over with - sooner rather than later" and - IMHO rightly - expecting the UK will arrive in Brussels very humble, almost Canossa like, within some weeks or a few months. The EU27 may extend one more time, but they may also and likely decide to take the fight now.

October 31. 2019 is a near optimal timing for the EU27 and about the worst time for the UK.

• The UK must import much food in the winter early spring.
• The world market prices on animal food - pork in particular - are record high due to ASF in China and spill over effects on other food products.
• Most EU27 countries are at least as well prepared for mitigating their own problems following a 'No Deal' as is the UK.
• Negotiating trade deals with the US in an US MAGA election year - how naive can you get?
• An US trade deal without having secured the GFA and the open border :eek:
• etc...

And note, the decisions do not come from Dublin but from among all EU27 PMs. Only one EU27 member state is needed to prevent another extension.

Most EU27 countries know much about open and closed borders, just ask Bundeskanzlerin Merkel or the Poles or the Danes or the Finns or Estonians or ...


Lars

ancapailldorcha

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The UK may get a somewhat better deal from the USA than we think.

If the USA is playing a long game then it would be in their interests to be fair and reasonable. It would cast a shadow on the existing narrative that being a member of the EU bloc helps European countries in their negotiations with the USA. Whether they are clever enough to play such a long game is a question though. Short-term may override it.

It is overwhelmingly in the American interest that the EU prosper. If it falls apart, the US will lose a lucrative market for its goods and services. Trump might not care in the short term but I won't tar the whole of the US government with that brush.

As I said before, US Congress members will listen to their lobbies and donors, not Boris Johnson. They'll try to be fair but any trade deal will have American interests at its heart, not those of the UK. This is what Trump means when he says "America first."

Stop moaning ffs

Find myself in the uncomfortable position of having a lifelong opposition to US interference in other countries problems and policies, to welcoming this interference warmly

A Dub in Glasgo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I am quite annoyed that the SINDO gives ammunition to people like this



I'll refrain from saying what I really think of that "newspaper".

Is that Eoghan Harris? Needless to say he has spouted some sort of nonsense in his 'career'