Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

LuckyLloyd

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Telegraph is on Hogan's case. Good sign.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/10/european-commission-names-irish-brexit-critic-handle-eu-uk-trade/

Top comments on that article a nice mixture of stupidity, bitterness and outright racism.

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's a last chance saloon, beyond which is a very uncertain future.

He'd still need ALL of the rebel Tories to back him, which would be a good trick after how he just treated them.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

He'd still need ALL of the rebel Tories to back him, which would be a good trick after how he just treated them.

Many of them voted for the WA at least once. Some, all three times. Rory Stewart springs to mind. The nuclear button for a lot of these people would be the prospect of Corbyn getting a shot at number ten. Undiluted kryptonite for them. He may still lose some of them, but it's not a given that they'd all automatically vote against him. Especially if he can present it as a cunning plan that he'd kept up his sleeve and couldn't share with them at the time. Tories gonna Tory at the end of the day. And there are quite a few Labour MPs who'd support it too.

Water John

Those who voted for the WA, would do so again.

brick tamland

Water John wrote: »

Those who voted for the WA, would do so again.

Not sure they all will. Plenty have announced plans to not stand again so they will not be bound to their constituents to vote for the new WA as wont be requiring support for re-election.

I reckon most will vote against person that just sacked them. Probably wasn't a master stroke from BJ/DC

hometruths

Enzokk wrote: »

On the 19th July,

Labour is finally backing a second referendum. Is it too little, too late?

The confusion, manufactured by the Tories and press, has come in with the policy Labour would follow. They are not taking a position but will try to ensure people have clear options that they will vote on. For Brexiters this is obviously scandalous because in their minds if you believe enough and tackle the problem with energy and determination it will be solved.

It is no surprise the party of deceit is happy with sowing doubts on the opposition policies.


There are elements in Labour that wanted to leave the EU, but I think it has slowly dawned on them that Brexit in any form will be a disaster for the country, which in turn will make it harder for them to implement their policies. You still have people in power who believe in Brexit, but the likes of McCluskey is very much in the minority and once he sees the projections that made May pull back from the edge he will do the same.

In fairness, Labour are making it easy for the Tories and press to exploit the confusion. This Emily Thornberry - Shadow Foreign Secretary:

LeinsterDub

brick tamland wrote: »

Not sure they all will. Plenty have announced plans to not stand again so they will not be bound to their constituents to vote for the new WA as wont be requiring support for re-election.

I reckon most will vote against person that just sacked them. Probably wasn't a master stroke from BJ/DC

Unlike BJ/DC they'll put country ahead of petty personal issues

prawnsambo

brick tamland wrote: »

Not sure they all will. Plenty have announced plans to not stand again so they will not be bound to their constituents to vote for the new WA as wont be requiring support for re-election.

I reckon most will vote against person that just sacked them. Probably wasn't a master stroke from BJ/DC

Their stated reason, in the main, was their opposition to a no deal brexit that they believed Johnson was pursuing. If he turned around and said that he was bluffing to get [whatever form he pivots to - assuming he does] a deal through, then they have very little reason to oppose it. They are still MPs and I suspect the likes of Amber Rudd, Rory Stewart and probably even Jo Johnson would vote for it.

It's definitely a numbers game and there's a good chance he won't get them, but there have been enough Labour MPs voting for the WA in its past iterations to possibly outweigh any Tory rebels. Many sit in leave constituencies.

Leroy42

schmittel wrote: »

In fairness, Labour are making it easy for the Tories and press to exploit the confusion. This Emily Thornberry - Shadow Foreign Secretary:

TBF, the Tory position is no more clear Labour. Remember we had TM claim that no PM could ever agree to a backstop, before agreeing to one. That UK were definitely leaving on 28th March, before taking two extensions and even that she had no intention of calling an election, before calling an election.

We have just seen 22 MPs stripped of the whip and kicked out of the party because they don't believe in No Deal. A member of the cabinet has just resigned. How many resigned over Brexit from the previous cabinet? Not to mention there whole idea now is to threaten the EU with the chaos and economic hardship that a No Deal will inevitably mean, except for the UK where No Deal will have hardly any effect at all!

The Tories have a party within a party. They are just better at lying that those in Labour are about it. They firmly and totally hold a singular position, until such time as they don't!

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

He may still lose some of them, but it's not a given that they'd all automatically vote against him. Especially if he can present it as a cunning plan that he'd kept up his sleeve and couldn't share with them at the time.

If he had a cunning plan which relied on the vote of those 21 MPs, why expel them? Johnson himself, Rees-Mogg, Patel and Raab all defied the whip this year and were not ejected.

He had a majority of zero before he expelled those 21 MPs and Amber Rudd quit. He needs every single one of them to back him at the same time as every single ERG member - not happening.

He will probably try, he is working his way through a series of options he gamed out beforehand, I am sure. But this one will fail just like all the others.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If he had a cunning plan which relied on the vote of those 21 MPs, why expel them? Johnson himself, Rees-Mogg, Patel and Raab all defied the whip this year and were not ejected.

He had a majority of zero before he expelled those 21 MPs and Amber Rudd quit. He needs every single one of them to back him at the same time as every single ERG member - not happening.

He will probably try, he is working his way through a series of options he gamed out beforehand, I am sure. But this one will fail just like all the others.

I'm not saying he has a cunning plan. Just that he can paint it that way. If he wanted to spin their expulsion, I have a particularly Cummingsy way he could do that. Just tell them that their expulsion made it look like he was deadly serious about no deal. And thank them for their service in that regard.



I'm writing up my CV as super-spad as we speak.

Water John

The permanancy of such work is very precarious.

jimmycrackcorm

Boris is in a terrible bind of his own making. The core strategy is to run down the clock. Prorogation has backfired because of losing the majority, hence Boris needs an election before Nov.
An election after leaving when the **** his the fan will just make the Tories suffer when people feel the practical effects.
Either Boris will have to beg the EU for an extension or there week be the last minute deal with NI only backstop.

There's no negative for the unionists with that, it's not as if they're going to start trying to blow up their heartland of Larne and their farmers will continue to enjoy the benefits of being in the SM. Their members will come to be British citizens living in a UK territory. It's difficult for them to argue that they are cut off from the UK economic Union as they can also enjoy exporting internally in the UK market.

The DUPs position is simply based on bigotry, nothing else. It's their chance to overturn the GFA that they vilified and objected to.

Another poster alluded to an ERG member suggesting a backstop poll be held in NI. While this seems good because the outcome looks very favourable, it's not clear that bigotry would not prevail, but it's not a goer because there is no way to tell the Scots that they can't have the same.

Zubeneschamali

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

there is no way to tell the Scots that they can't have the same.

Well, there is. It will encourage them to go for Scottish independence, but since they will probably never elect a Tory to Westminster again, Johnson&Cummings probably don't care - it'd swing the Westminster maths back towards Tory dominance of the new United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland For The Minute.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If he had a cunning plan which relied on the vote of those 21 MPs, why expel them? Johnson himself, Rees-Mogg, Patel and Raab all defied the whip this year and were not ejected.

He had a majority of zero before he expelled those 21 MPs and Amber Rudd quit. He needs every single one of them to back him at the same time as every single ERG member - not happening.

He will probably try, he is working his way through a series of options he gamed out beforehand, I am sure. But this one will fail just like all the others.

He is not as worried about the rebels voting for a deal, as he is worried about the ERG.

If he comes back with a deal - one that ringfences Northern Ireland in some way - the ERG have a problem in that Labour will give Boris the election he wants immediately afterwards. If they vote against his deal, he will remove the whip, automatically deselecting them. Unlike a number of the rebels, most of them want to be re-elected, so the current expulsion will give them pause.

Of course he loses the DUP, but the clever Labour play is to take his proposal, accept it, but amend the motion to provide for a referendum on his deal. Boris gets his deal and an election, Labour get an election and a second referendum. Lib Dems get to vote for Remain. All fight it out in a referendum and an election.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not saying he has a cunning plan. Just that he can paint it that way. If he wanted to spin their expulsion, I have a particularly Cummingsy way he could do that. Just tell them that their expulsion made it look like he was deadly serious about no deal. And thank them for their service in that regard.



I'm writing up my CV as super-spad as we speak.

Cunning Cummings. Cool name for a Machiavellian advisor.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

Of course he loses the DUP, but the clever Labour play is to take his proposal, accept it, but amend the motion to provide for a referendum on his deal.

Won't work without a 1 year extension to allow a referendum. A referendum on a WA that has been ratified already is pointless.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Won't work without a 1 year extension to allow a referendum. A referendum on a WA that has been ratified already is pointless.

If you are looking for a win-win-win situation, a referendum is part of it. The EU will extend to allow for a second referendum.

ancapailldorcha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Won't work without a 1 year extension to allow a referendum. A referendum on a WA that has been ratified already is pointless.

I think 2 separate extensions are the most likely if the UK is destined to stay in the EU. There will be a short one initially to facilitate a general election. If Labour, buoyed by the remain parties win then they will request the second extension to allow for a People's Vote to secure a mandate to repeal A50.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are looking for a win-win-win situation, a referendum is part of it.

Johnson won't go for that, since Remain could win and he'd branded a traitor and a loser forever by the Brexiteers.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

If you are looking for a win-win-win situation, a referendum is part of it. The EU will extend to allow for a second referendum.

He's said it many times and he was categorical last night in the HoC. He won't ask for an extension. Of course he might be lying, perish the thought.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Telegraph is on Hogan's case.

Phil Hogan, an Irish politician with a hatred of Brexit

:D:D

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

The core issue is that Brexit means that it must be one or the other. It is terrible that that is the case, but that is how it is. The UK wants to leave the EU and that fundamentally changes the current situation with regards to UK/NI/ROI.

They have hummed and hawwed for three years trying to come to a solution which means nothing has to change, but everyone accepts that it is not possible based on the UK leaving.

So the only consideration is which is the least damaging to NI as a whole. Of course identity is a major factor, and I agree with you points about a sea border being the same as a land border to the DUP and others, but the alternative is an actual land border.

You are making it out as if their is another way. And I say again, whichever direction or option is gone for it will entirely on the basis of what the UK wants, or at least accepted.

Correct: it is true that a border in any location changes the status quo, however a land border is more disruptive than a sea border. Furthermore, the DUP campaigned for brexit (i.e. to change the status quo) and supported a particularly hard brexit which requires a border (again to change the status quo).
What right do they have to complain that the status quo is now changing?

flanna01

The DUP need to look at the bigger picture..

They are about 700yrs behind modern society, their political clout is declining rapidly.

In another ten or twenty years, there will be a United Ireland weather they like it or not. The GFA which was agreed upon will ensure this happens sooner rather than later.

Look at the even bigger picture... It doesn't really matter what piece of rock you cling to. Be it the UK rock, the Irish rock, or the tip of Northern Ireland land mass.... We'er all practically the same, put the bigotry behind us, and embrace the future..

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1171447467755229186


A lot of talk recently of the NI only backstop being revived and maybe slight polished . The ERG would of course reject this but you might get some labour rebels on board. Is this a realistic proposal or just the last viable hope of no deal being trashed out before being killing reality being force upon it.

hill16bhoy

J Mysterio wrote: »

1. A border in the Irish Sea is not commensurate with a border across Ireland. Border in the Irish sea is not a 'hard border', it is a natural one - it's a fuçking sea. Checks can take place with goods in transit - no time wasted.

2. NI voted to remain in the EU. The DUP do not speak for NI.

3. The DUP unequivocally support the UK and so they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

4. The backstop is an unbelievable deal for NI, rendering it a special economic zone and offers the best of both worlds to them.

An NI-only backstop may be a "good deal" in purely economic terms (it still isn't nearly as good as the current situation) - but that isn't the point - the point is that it takes Northern Ireland out of the same customs zone as the rest of the UK, and crucially, in identity terms, weakens the ties between NI and Britain.

We in the Republic don't want our ties to the North weakened. Unionists don't want their ties to Britain to be weakened either.

Even though I aspire to see a united Ireland, I can understand their view.

Yes, there's a sea. There's sea between different parts of lots of countries.

I doubt Corsicans would be too pleased if they were in a different customs zone to France, or South Islanders in New Zealand if they were transferred into a different customs zone to North Island, Sicily and Italy, Crete and Greece etc. etc.

prawnsambo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1171447467755229186

A lot of talk recently of the NI only backstop being revived and maybe slight polished . The ERG would of course reject this but you might get some labour rebels on board. Is this a realistic proposal or just the last viable hope of no deal being trashed out before being killing reality being force upon it.

I don't know that the ERG would definitively reject it. It has the major bonus of allowing the UK make trade deals (and whatever else they want to do post TP) that they couldn't if they were in the all-UK backstop. All the level playing field stuff that they didn't like is gone too. So other than loyalty to the DUP [snigger], there's not much they could object to in principle.

Igotadose

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't know that the ERG would definitively reject it. It has the major bonus of allowing the UK make trade deals (and whatever else they want to do post TP) that they couldn't if they were in the all-UK backstop. All the level playing field stuff that they didn't like is gone too. So other than loyalty to the DUP [snigger], there's not much they could object to in principle.

It still contains the tax-avoidance laws that the ERG despise. So, I expect they'll be against it still. Nope, no new deal before 19 October, then a request for suspension for an election in November.

Water John

The ERG will vote for it if they perceive this as the only Brexit route available.

lawred2

hill16bhoy wrote: »

An NI-only backstop may be a "good deal" in purely economic terms (it still isn't nearly as good as the current situation) - but that isn't the point - the point is that it takes Northern Ireland out of the same customs zone as the rest of the UK, and crucially, in identity terms, weakens the ties between NI and Britain.

We in the Republic don't want our ties to the North weakened. Unionists don't want their ties to Britain to be weakened either.

Even though I aspire to see a united Ireland, I can understand their view.

Yes, there's a sea. There's sea between different parts of lots of countries.

I doubt Corsicans would be too pleased if they were in a different customs zone to France, or South Islanders in New Zealand if they were transferred into a different customs zone to North Island, Sicily and Italy, Crete and Greece etc. etc.

Are any of those partitioned?

Split between inside and outside a major international cooperative and regulated socio-political trading union?

With all inhabitants possessing the right to dual citizenship?

No?

Oh right