Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

People saying this double majority vote is more or less as good as the backstop because the nationalist side will never vote to get rid of it have very, very short memories. A few years ago, we were saying Trump would never get the republican nomination, then we were saying he would never win the presidency, then we were saying the UK will never vote to leave the UK. Sometimes the things you think will never happen, actually happen.

All those were still close run things, even when they started out. Trump was an early front-runner in the GOP primaries. Brexit polling was also close

Sinn Fein/SDLP taking the same stance as the DUP would be a thing of such fantastical proportions, squadrons of pigs would take to the air and fly in perfect V-formation over Stormont.

Seth Brundle

Another company has set up a hub in Dublin as a consequence of Brexit.
This time it is an Investment company with assets worth £26billion.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/uk-funds-company-merian-hires-for-dublin-office-before-brexit-1.4045049

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1181876630173736962

swampgas

Guardian reporting that talks have openly come to a halt. No great surprise given the antics of what passes for the British Government recently.
"Sources from both sides confirm that no further negotiations are scheduled"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/09/brexit-talks-in-brussels-between-eu-and-the-uk-come-to-a-halt

ilovesmybrick

And the double veto suggestion also appears to have some dubious origins...

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1181872655860940800?s=20

trellheim

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

NotToScale

darem93 wrote: »

Neale Richmod has been straight on the case calling it out for the rubbish that it is.

https://twitter.com/nealerichmond/status/1181832850049515520

The British media really have gone to hell. Do the government really have them that much in their back pocket that they're printing blatant lies and reporting it as legitimate news?

Probably the other way around. You're looking at a Murdock paper. The Times (of London) has gone from being a grand old newspaper of record to being more like the Sun for those of a more advanced reading ability.

prawnsambo

trellheim wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

This may be one reason:

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not really. It would make a brexit deal more likely and a UI less likely.

Edit: Sinn Fein saying they don't like it, immediately makes it more palatable to the DUP and the Tories. NI politics is so confusing.

Tacitus Kilgore

trellheim wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

Who represents the non aligned people of NI in a Unionist VS Nationalist decision?


It's "undemocratic" as they love to say - but rightly in this case - by having (permanently entrenched, sectarian, self harming) parties decide

Umaro

I'd like to throw out an idea to see what people think.


The problem with Brexit now is that we all know that the deadlines are meaningless and the only tactic that HMG have is brinksmanship. They bluster and threaten and timewaste up until the point where they blink and have to ask for an extension. Each time Theresa May got close to the crash out she was able to get an extension and now its about to happen a 3rd time. Even following a General Election, I'd say its unlikely Parliament will find a consensus (and in all likelihood it'll be even more fractured).

So my proposal would be: This 3rd extension would be granted, with one key difference. There would be no set date on which the UK would leave (call it the Rolling Extension or something). The EU would state that the current WA+Backstop stays on the table and its their final offer unless they receive concessions. Its then up to the House of Commons to find a consensus on deal, concessions or no deal. In the event of No Deal they would give the EU 2 months notice. This would kill off the brinksmanship created by hard deadlines and put the ball squarely in the British court. No more running down the clock and disingenuous lies, no more bollix about "the EU will blink". The EU would take a big step back from the circus that is British politics and let the infighting take its course.


I'm sure there's some reason why this wouldn't work, but I wanted to open it up for debate purely as "what if".

AlmightyCushion

trellheim wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

Because it does not satisfy the backstop. The backstop is there to prevent a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This double majority can lead to a border.

listermint

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

People saying this double majority vote is more or less as good as the backstop because the nationalist side will never vote to get rid of it have very, very short memories. A few years ago, we were saying Trump would never get the republican nomination, then we were saying he would never win the presidency, then we were saying the UK will never vote to leave the UK. Sometimes the things you think will never happen, actually happen.

Such is the right of the electorate. Let's not be like the DUP and claim to speak for them or at least a section of them .

Tell me how

Umaro wrote: »

I'd like to throw out an idea to see what people think.


The problem with Brexit now is that we all know that the deadlines are meaningless and the only tactic that HMG have is brinksmanship. They bluster and threaten and timewaste up until the point where they blink and have to ask for an extension. Each time Theresa May got close to the crash out she was able to get an extension and now its about to happen a 3rd time. Even following a General Election, I'd say its unlikely Parliament will find a consensus (and in all likelihood it'll be even more fractured).

So my proposal would be: This 3rd extension would be granted, with one key difference. There would be no set date on which the UK would leave (call it the Rolling Extension or something). The EU would state that the current WA+Backstop stays on the table and its their final offer unless they receive concessions. Its then up to the House of Commons to find a consensus on deal, concessions or no deal. In the event of No Deal they would give the EU 2 months notice. This would kill off the brinksmanship created by hard deadlines and put the ball squarely in the British court. No more running down the clock and disingenuous lies, no more bollix about "the EU will blink". The EU would take a big step back from the circus that is British politics and let the infighting take its course.


I'm sure there's some reason why this wouldn't work, but I wanted to open it up for debate purely as "what if".

It wouldn't look good for the EU to suggest open ended withdrawal is acceptable at a pace the UK want to take. Brexit is affecting and will affect other countries in the EU as well, most of all Ireland and the machinations of the EU cannot be permanently kept poised to act when the UK get their house in order.
An even more extended state of flux will be equally as harmful to business and investment some of who will likely decide to not wait around or invest and just move elsewhere.

Also, it suits the EU to look professional in this and to have all the extensions be placed at the hands of UK ineptitude.

AlmightyCushion

prawnsambo wrote: »

All those were still close run things, even when they started out. Trump was an early front-runner in the GOP primaries. Brexit polling was also close

Sinn Fein/SDLP taking the same stance as the DUP would be a thing of such fantastical proportions, squadrons of pigs would take to the air and fly in perfect V-formation over Stormont.

You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. When he announced, it was largely considered a joke or a publicity stunt. Even when he has success early on in the polls, people (including high up members of the GOP) were still saying he would never get the nomination.

MrMusician18

trellheim wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

Because the proposal commits the EU to having an open border no matter what Stormont decides. I know this is unlikely but park that for a moment, it's a hypothetical. So say SF and the unionists agree that they decide to go with the UK customs Union (we'll say SF see it as a way of forcing the border question). The EU will have committed to keeping the border free of checks in that instance, which is untenable. This creates a difficulty for the EU and probably a crisis for Irish membership.

It's unlikely in the current climate, but a legally operative text has to consider all possibilities and and the EU is not going to leave such a door open, when, if used, would fundamentally undermine it's SM and CU.

trellheim

Fair point. But then in that case NI would in that unlikely case want to be clearly in the UK and put a border up so the EU could write it in, but that sounds exactly like the kind of stretching that might be possible ...

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They’re right though. The assembly is not guaranteed to sit as we have seen; and no one political body should hold the power to transform fundamental issues of citizenship, nationality and statehood.

Any solution around this should be based on a NI referendum.

A referendum seems a terrible idea to me. We know (from previous referenda here and from Brexit) that lies take over, that there will be huge outside influence and that many people will vote on what they think the issue is rather than facts.

I could see it easily being lost by a combination of the unionist side saying it's really a vote on a UI, and the nationalist side (possibly deliberately) not running an effective campaign that gets the vote out.

briany

Umaro wrote: »

I'd like to throw out an idea to see what people think.


The problem with Brexit now is that we all know that the deadlines are meaningless and the only tactic that HMG have is brinksmanship. They bluster and threaten and timewaste up until the point where they blink and have to ask for an extension. Each time Theresa May got close to the crash out she was able to get an extension and now its about to happen a 3rd time. Even following a General Election, I'd say its unlikely Parliament will find a consensus (and in all likelihood it'll be even more fractured).

So my proposal would be: This 3rd extension would be granted, with one key difference. There would be no set date on which the UK would leave (call it the Rolling Extension or something). The EU would state that the current WA+Backstop stays on the table and its their final offer unless they receive concessions. Its then up to the House of Commons to find a consensus on deal, concessions or no deal. In the event of No Deal they would give the EU 2 months notice. This would kill off the brinksmanship created by hard deadlines and put the ball squarely in the British court. No more running down the clock and disingenuous lies, no more bollix about "the EU will blink". The EU would take a big step back from the circus that is British politics and let the infighting take its course.


I'm sure there's some reason why this wouldn't work, but I wanted to open it up for debate purely as "what if".

I like your idea. Let the British get their house in order. Come back when when they've made a decision. The frustrating about Brexit right now is that the British are approaching the process as if it's a teenager hurriedly scribbling down his maths homework at 11:59 PM Sunday night, or actually doing it on his knee on the bus, Monday morning. Er, or really, I suppose, doing it in the 5 minute wait before the teacher arrives into the class. Nothing gets done until time pressure forces them to act, and even then it is half-assed, and the bare minimum needed to avoid disaster.

They wouldn't know what to do without the time limit. Right now, it's the deadline that is their best bet of leaving the EU at all.

What's funny is that the tabloid would invariably paint this proposal as a cancellation of Brexit, which would be ridiculous yet true to form. Really, what they'd be implying was that British politics was a complete failure. It would be a bit like giving someone a load of raw cooking ingredients and cooking implements, and then as you turn around and walk away, they say, "Oh, I'm being left to starve!"

Stop moaning ffs

I guess it’s all so up in the air it leaves plenty of fertile ground for stories fake and real. But I’d wonder where these all come from when they aren’t Cummings. Or was this one Cummings kite flying?

https://twitter.com/albertonardelli/status/1181882887781715974?s=21

54and56

Call me Al wrote: »

So The Times is reporting that the EU is proposing a "concession" of sorts.

https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1181845952392503296?s=20

Basically a double-majority required to come out of the backstop. I.e. both unionist and republican MLAs would have to vote to remove the backstop.

Needless to say the unionists commenting really don't like this more democratic flavour of democracy.

This is Johnson's get out of jail card and is absolutely consistent with both the Irish/EU position on the British border in Ireland and the GFA.

If the UK wants a deal and the "eternal" and "undemocratic" backstop is the objection then a time limit on the backstop which can be lifted in favour of WTO/FTA/Whatever status GB has with the EU at that point providing their is democratic consent from both communities is about as democratic as it can get in the unique circumstances which prevail in NI.

Currently the status quo is SM and CU alignment between NI and RoI as both are in the EU. That's the starting point which should be maintained, via the backstop, until replaced by a FTA or legally operable alternatives which achieve the same thing or until a majority of both communities vote for a new direction entirely and if they do why should RoI object?

prawnsambo

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You're saying that with the benefit of hindsight. When he announced, it was largely considered a joke or a publicity stunt. Even when he has success early on in the polls, people (including high up members of the GOP) were still saying he would never get the nomination.

Whether it was taken as a joke or not, he was actually standing for selection, was getting support and even had he not made it through that process, it would still have been a lot more likely than Sinn Fein and the DUP being aligned on creating a border on the island of Ireland. And this proposal is a one-time only shot, making it even more unlikely. So yes, there's a chance, but whatever about how it would affect the DUP, it would wipe Sinn Fein out immediately.

robinph

Tell me how wrote: »

It wouldn't look good for the EU to suggest open ended withdrawal is acceptable at a pace the UK want to take. Brexit is affecting and will affect other countries in the EU as well, most of all Ireland and the machinations of the EU cannot be permanently kept poised to act when the UK get their house in order.
An even more extended state of flux will be equally as harmful to business and investment some of who will likely decide to not wait around or invest and just move elsewhere.

Also, it suits the EU to look professional in this and to have all the extensions be placed at the hands of UK ineptitude.

It's only really harmful to the UK to have the rolling extension, the EU gains as it will get more businesses relocating, and they can otherwise just ignore the UK until a decision is actually made. Businesses that haven't already relocated will still have time to do so and the issue of then maybe only having two months notice of the impending exit isn't really an issue either. The UK has been due to leave within 2 months for most of the last 10 months, but hasn't.

All that would change is that when the two month notice is given people and businesses actually know what will happen at the end of those two months, rather than the current state where nobody knows what will happen tomorrow.

Infini

trellheim wrote: »

What on earth is wrong with an NI both sides consent backstop ? Seriously lads thats the best landing zone I can see ( wtf is SF's issue with it, they had no problem crashing the assembly )

Its not a viable solution it only looks like one. Simple truth is you cant have this as a solution because firstly it hands power to 2 polarised parties and secondly all it takes is for one party namely the Dumbass Unionist Party to collapse the thing in a sulk to leave the assembly out of action when it needs to be reviewed.

FrancieBrady

Infini wrote: »

Its not a viable solution it only looks like one. Simple truth is you cant have this as a solution because firstly it hands power to 2 polarised parties and secondly all it takes is for one party namely the Dumbass Unionist Party to collapse the thing in a sulk to leave the assembly out of action when it needs to be reviewed.

Not forgetting the uncertainty here in the south. Untenable situation really.

54and56

Call me Al wrote: »

Well of course they'll say no. But its Parliament he needs. He might persuade them. He needs an election either way, and this would be Brexit delivered and his Tory electorate out.

This proposed solution by the EU allows BoJo to kill off Farage's Brexit party as Brexit would be "done" (only starting really) by the time an election is held thus negating the need for the Brexit party to exist albeit they will be moaning about BoJo selling out and how Brexit is BRINO etc etc and it would also rid him of his need to kowtow to the deeee youuuu peeee and their incessant oxygen draining whingeing.

LeinsterDub

54and56 wrote: »

This proposed solution by the EU allows BoJo to kill off Farage's Brexit party as Brexit would be "done" (only starting really) by the time an election is held thus negating the need for the Brexit party to exist albeit they will be moaning about BoJo selling out and how Brexit is BRINO etc etc and it would also rid him of his need to kowtow to the deeee youuuu peeee and their incessant oxygen draining whingeing.

Twitter\The EU are saying they didn't propose anything https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1181865877874053120

ToBeFrank123

CelticRambler wrote: »

I have no skin in that particular game, but I would agree that any decision of this importance should be made by the electorate as individuals, not delegated to MPs or Assemblymen. We've seen the DUP appoint themselves as the voice of all NI, but know that they don't even represent all Unionists. Similarly SF claim more seats on the republican side than their Fenian support warrants.

Unless it is very precisely defined who can represent the unionist and republican communities - and, I would argue, those who choose not to identify as either - then anything other than a straightforward one-person-one-vote referendum is likely to cause more dispute than it resolves.

Agreed.

There are DUP voters who want to remain in the Customs Union, eg Unionist farmers. There are no doubt Sinn Fein voters also who want to remain in or else stay out of the Customs Union for their own reasons. The MLAs don't represent these different viewpoints fully. You could potentially see Sinn Fein oppose renewal of the backstop as they think a struggling NI would be a better route to a United Ireland.

A one man/woman one vote referendum is fairest for the people of NI.

Like most people I have very little faith in NI MLAs.

Stop moaning ffs

Tony fleshing it out

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1181900588134621185?s=21

LuckyLloyd

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A referendum seems a terrible idea to me. We know (from previous referenda here and from Brexit) that lies take over, that there will be huge outside influence and that many people will vote on what they think the issue is rather than facts.

I could see it easily being lost by a combination of the unionist side saying it's really a vote on a UI, and the nationalist side (possibly deliberately) not running an effective campaign that gets the vote out.

The GFA agreement is underpinned by a broad consensus at the ballot box from the electorate. The principles of the GFA (ballot box approval; power sharing; bi community consent; Irish / UK gov oversight) need to apply to any solution on the backstop, etc. This proposal - while a potential step in the right direction - isn’t where it needs to be.

An Ciarraioch

I like this suggestion by Politico - NI would opt-in by default, would have to actively opt-out, but no party would have a veto. If alternative arrangements not agreed, NI would be in both customs territories:

https://www.politico.eu/article/opinion-a-brexit-deal-is-still-possible-heres-how-theresa-may-boris-johnson-ireland-customs-backstop-european-union-negotiations/amp/?__twitter_impression=true