Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

Taking a GE as part of the Plan, what is the follow up? Dumping NI is one option. Not sure of any others.

eagle eye

BobbyBobberson wrote:

The foreign secretary was on the BBC saying this yesterday.

I'm asking if you have proof that they don't have the mandate?

Lackadaisical

Well I think Fianna Fail deserve to take the political heat for this. I'd a strong sense they were begining crack and put party before country again. I guess they'll be embracing Tory style eurosceptic populism will be next.

ath262

.....

Editorial in the Financial Times - Brexit has become the enemy of the UK union :

"Boris Johnson’s ‘do or die’ strategy is gambling with Britain’s future...The prime minister’s twin ambitions are on a dangerous collision course. Brexit in any shape promises to weaken the bonds between the nations of the British Isles. I......"

lawred2 wrote: »

paywalled

displayed fine for me earlier - maybe you get one article free ?

"Boris Johnson declares himself a champion of the UK union, a prime minister who wants to strengthen “the ties that bind our United Kingdom”. Mr Johnson also promises to leave the EU — “do or die” — by the end of October. Just days in office, he has flatly dismissed the withdrawal deal agreed with Brussels by Theresa May, and ordered Whitehall to draw up plans for Britain to crash out of the EU without a deal.The prime minister’s twin ambitions are on a dangerous collision course.



Brexit in any shape promises to weaken the bonds between the nations of the British Isles. In the extreme form that seems to be the working assumption by Mr Johnson’s new administration, it will impose intolerable strains. This could set in train a process that ends with the break-up of the union. Mr Johnson’s promise of some extra Westminster funding scarcely measures up to the political forces he seems ready to unleash.


Visiting Scotland at the start of a tour to polish his unionist credentials (Belfast and Cardiff are also on the itinerary), Mr Johnson said he still wants an amicable agreement with the EU27. But he flatly rejected again any “backstop” clause to ensure the preservation of the open border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. The prime minister knows this is an impossible demand. The open border is integral to the Good Friday

Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU have rightly made it a red line.



Inconveniently, the start of Mr Johnson’s tour coincided with the publication of a blunt, independent analysis prepared by the Institute for Government think-tank. The prime minister’s no-deal Brexit, it said, would put “unprecedented pressure” on the UK union. Northern Ireland would suffer a double blow: its economy would take a disproportionate hit because of its close integration with the Republic, while political stability would be jeopardised by an inevitable hardening of the border. Opinion could begin to tip towards Irish reunification.


If Mr Johnson harboured any doubts as to the effects in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, will have removed them. Ms Davidson, the architect in recent years of a Tory revival in Scotland, has strongly criticised Mr Johnson’s ultimatum. She has also been angered by his decision to sack as Scottish secretary the middle-of-the-road Tory David Mundell, in favour of the hardline Brexiter Alister Jack.



Ms Davidson fears, and rightly so, that the economic chaos of a no-deal Brexit would play directly into the hands of Nicola Sturgeon’s Scottish Nationalist party. Support for the SNP has been rising and demand for a second referendum on Scottish independence could become irresistible.


The IFG report debunked the idea that the government could properly prepare for a cliff-edge Brexit. The EU would set unilaterally the terms of any emergency arrangements, the government could not compel business to prepare for tariffs and regulatory controls, and ministers would lose all bargaining leverage once Britain had left the EU.


Mr Johnson and his fellow Brexiters like to talk about “the will of the people” because of the 52:48 per cent UK-wide majority in the 2016 referendum. In its latest guise, Brexit more closely resembles an English nationalist project. In Scotland some 62 per cent, and in Northern Ireland 56 per cent, voted to remain in the EU. Riding roughshod over these views by crashing out of the EU would be more than an act of gross political irresponsibility. It would be a signal of Mr Johnson’s contempt for the union."

ancapailldorcha

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm asking if you have proof that they don't have the mandate?

I don't see no deal mentioned anywhere here.

ambro25

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm asking if you have proof that they don't have the mandate?

Find a Leave referendum campaign position, or a Tory GE 2017 manifesto pledge, for no-deal Brexit, and that would be proof of the mandate Boris claims to have for his current policy.

So far, nobody (incl. FactCheck) has been able to find it, but you're welcome to present it and get your 15 mins of fame across the Brexit twittersphere and beyond.

BobbyBobberson

No Deal was not in the public psyche until ERG members/UKIP started pushing it post referendum. It was never mentioned before the referendum and all Brexiteers spoke not just of the deal they would get, put the great deal.

The idea that 17 million people voted for No Deal is plainly false. There is no mandate from the British Public for WTO tarriffs.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Have you proof of this?

See the data here, it's very telling when people started to realise they needed to know what No Deal was.

https://twitter.com/mikebutcher/status/1155830876963528706

54and56

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

He may not have a choice. The Bailey situation becomes more septic by the day.

If elections were called every time an elected representative did something stupid we'd have several elections every year.

Poor decision making by Bailey which will likely end her political career or certainly limit it severely and rightly so.

Not exactly Watergate.

54and56

https://twitter.com/denisstaunton/status/1156163199709974529

Kermit.de.frog

Martin should ring Dooley's neck for that tweet.

Absolutely moronic thing to do giving ammunition to the most anti Irish, pro Brexit elements in the UK.

Igotadose

So, David Frost the now chief Brexit negotiator is already coming after worker's rights. No surprise, this is a big goal of life post-Brexit:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-eu-workers-rights-david-frost-theresa-may-barnier-a9025596.html

54and56

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't see no deal mentioned anywhere here.

I think the point is that the referendum question is actually silent on the terms on which the UK would leave the EU.

It doesn't say "leave with a deal" and it doesn't say "leave with no deal", it just says "leave" and in the absence of a specific instruction on the terms of leaving it is up to the government of the day, with the consent of parliament to determine the terms on which the UK leaves and unfortunately the A50 Withdrawal Act (or whatever it's called) permits the govt to leave on Oct 31st without a deal unless some other law to the contrary is passed (very unlikely) or the govt falls due to a no confidence motion being successful in which case BoJo will likely ask for and get an extension from the EU to facilitate a GE which if he wins will enable him to return with an even stronger mandate for a NDB.

Igotadose

54&56 wrote: »

I think the point is that the referendum question is actually silent on the terms on which the UK would leave the EU.

It doesn't say "leave with a deal" and it doesn't say "leave with no deal", it just says "leave" and in the absence of a specific instruction on the terms of leaving it is up to the government of the day, with the consent of parliament to determine the terms on which the UK leaves and unfortunately the A50 Withdrawal Act (or whatever it's called) permits the govt to leave on Oct 31st without a deal unless some other law to the contrary is passed (very unlikely) or the govt falls due to a no confidence motion being successful in which case BoJo will likely ask for and get an extension from the EU to facilitate a GE which if he wins will enable him to return with an even stronger mandate for a NDB.

If in fact they end up in a GE, the best outcome would be that whatever government results, does not include the DUP. If that's Boris's goal, more power to him, those crazed bigots shouldn't be near the levers of power anywhere.

lola85

FF always put the party first.

Using Brexit as an excuse to get one up on FG is absolutely ridiculous.

All parties need to be united at the moment.

I hate FF, snakes.

KildareP

Looks like FF have been getting a lot of heat alright:

https://twitter.com/MichealMartinTD/status/1156169979135442946

Leroy42

The point being that it is therefore wrong to claim that anyone has a mandate for No Deal.

WA actually fulfils the ref vote, but the ERG et all decided they alone understood what leave really meant.

But surprisingly are totally against asking the people again

brickster69

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

There is no mandate from the British Public for WTO tarriffs.

WTO Tarrifs on imports which the UK will keep, are twice they amount Uk exporters EU customers will pay.

eagle eye

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I don't see no deal mentioned anywhere here.

I don't see exit deal marked there anywhere either.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1156127793840869376

Neale Richmond rightly nailing this.

Tell me how

KildareP wrote: »

Looks like FF have been getting a lot of heat alright:

That's why I've a lot of time for Micheal Martin.

He could have stirred the pot a lot more over the last 18 months but has recognized the best interests of the country in terms of Brexit necessitated avoiding a GE.

That will change but it's been in stark contrast to the shadow PM's behavior in the UK.

Timmy had some sort of a brain freeze moment this morning.

VinLieger

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1156127793840869376

Neale Richmond rightly nailing this.

Hes right behind Coveney as being impressively informed when discussing Brexit on British media.

ambro25

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see exit deal marked there anywhere either.

That will be because you are (and all Leavers were, and most still are) unfamiliar with the wording of Article 50 TEU, the fundamental and sole provision upon which the Leave option of the 2016 referendum was hinged. The specific bit you're looking for is in paragraph 2.

Note also the express and crystal clear reference to that agreement being a "withdrawal" agreement (aka 'the divorce deal'), not the final trade agreement deal, whereby the UK-EU negotiations in the context of Art.50 were *always* going to be 2-staged (negotiate divorce deal, brexit, negotiate final deal post-Brexit).

Of course, lending an ear to experts (legal ones...although in this instance, no real need of expertise, just a passing familiarity with statutes and reading/comprehension) might have helped.

But you can't ever help those who refuse to help themselves so, for those, there's always Darwin.

FrancieBrady

VinLieger wrote: »

Hes right behind Coveney as being impressively informed when discussing Brexit on British media.

Mairead McGuinness, Simon Coveney, Neale Richmond, Helen McEntee, Leo Varadkar...in that order, have been well briefed and consistently en pointe.

eagle eye

ambro25 wrote:

But you can't ever help those who refuse to help themselves so, for those, there's always Darwin.

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

MadYaker

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't see exit deal marked there anywhere either.

The basic point he’s making is that during the referendum campaign the idea of crashing out of the EU without a deal was never on the table and even the pro brexit side always talked about leaving via a withdrawal agreement or deal because anything else is madness and would do huge damage to the UK. In order to sell brexit they had to reassure people. Unfortunately things have gotten steadily crazier since 2016 and now it seems to be an option.

FrancieBrady

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

The point is it is wrong to be claiming there is a mandate for No Deal when there is an agreed deal on the table. Totally disingenuous and wrong to do that.

54and56

lola85 wrote: »

FF always put the party first.

Using Brexit as an excuse to get one up on FG is absolutely ridiculous.

All parties need to be united at the moment.

I hate FF, snakes.

So do I as a generalisation but I have to say MM is rising above the "FF First" self interest and I for one respect him for that which in turn will alter my previous hatred for all things FF but only if MM can keep his colleagues in line.

Any perceived cracks between the common agreement on Brexit amongst the main political party's will be pounced on by those who seek to tear up the backstop. Given that FF are the self styled "Republican Party" I find it ironic that it is their members and not fringe FG or Labour Party members who are putting the self interest of generating a few controversial headlines ahead of national interest.

Lackadaisical

I would suspect all that FF will do with statements like that is increase the Sinn Fein vote. It's extremely miscalculated opportunism.

ambro25

eagle eye wrote: »

Nowhere in any document does it say there cannot be a hard Brexit.
The British electorate voted to leave.
There is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.
So you were right that they don't have a mandate but they don't have a mandate for a soft Brexit either.

BTW I'm not in favour of Brexit because of the NI situation.

No, there isn't indeed, and you are right, there is no mandate for anything as regards how they leave.

There isn't even a mandate tor leaving in the first place, once you take the advisory character (statutorily so) of the 2016 ref into account. There is a (barely) majority opinion, from a subset of the general population, supporting it in an official nationwide poll.

Therefore there isn't any more of a mandate for the WA, as there is for no deal, contrary to Johnson's claim that he has a mandate for 'no deal'.

Glad we eventually cleared that up.

Now Johnson is PM, so he can pursue whatever Brexit policy he chooses. But he doesn't get to claim a 'mandate' for it.

I'm not bothered about what your reasons for Brexit are (if you are pro-Brexit, as that's not clear to me), I'm 100% equal opportunities in my contempt, where Leavers are concerned.