Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think you are right, and there were several posts here on the forum saying something like that when the details of Varadkar's proposal came out: people saying that is was a climbdown and a bad idea and giving a say to Stormont was nuts.

But after folks thought about it for a while, we mostly concluded that this "frontstop" is better for Ireland than May's deal. It starts day one and is permanent, with no Unless and Until clause except a vote at Stormont. WHich means Unionists would have to vote explicitly for a hard border in order for it to happen. Which would be mad, and would move an actual UI closer.

It would take more than unionists. There are currently 40 MLAs of a unioinist disposition in Stormont out of a total of 90 MLAs. So it would require all unionists and some nationalists (hell would freeze over) or the Alliance, Greens and independents to all vote for it too.

Dyr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But after folks thought about it for a while, we mostly concluded that this "frontstop" is better for Ireland than May's deal. It starts day one and is permanent, with no Unless and Until clause except a vote at Stormont. WHich means Unionists would have to vote explicitly for a hard border in order for it to happen. Which would be mad, and would move an actual UI closer.

It's not permanent. That's magical thinking from people who were asserting that the Irish Government and the EU had the whip hand and would not renegotiate the WA with Johnson. The same lads were purse clutching about Cummings being hell bent on a Hard Brexit when it was obvious that he was using Steve Bannon playbook of overshooting the target to force concessions. And it worked for them

Varadker stuck a bomb under the GFA based on the logic that Unionists will never be able to ignite it. Interesting strategy.

LeinsterDub

Bambi wrote: »

It's not permanent. That's magical thinking from people who were asserting that the Irish Government and the EU had the whip hand and would not renegotiate the WA with Johnson. The same lads were purse clutching about Cummings being hell bent on a Hard Brexit when it was obvious that he was using Steve Bannon playbook of overshooting the target to force concessions. And it worked for them

Varadker stuck a bomb under the GFA based on the logic that Unionists will never be able to ignite it. Interesting strategy.

Nothing is permanent really. It's as permanent as permanent can mean and it's not unionists who would ignite it, it would be a majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
The same kind of majority I'd expect you would be calling for us to respect in the case of a vote for a UI

briany

Bambi wrote: »

Varadker stuck a bomb under the GFA based on the logic that Unionists will never be able to ignite it. Interesting strategy.

There's already a bomb under the GFA, and the fuse is already perilously close to being lit. Loyalists are making threats over the proposed arrangements, never mind what would happen if Stormont voted to change them. You p*ss off some group of people whatever way you approach this. Sea border = angry Unionists. Land border = angry Nationalists. All UK backstop means 17.4* mil are angry. Cancelling Brexit means much the same. Every single solution to this thing is problematic, so let them pick one and deal with it.

At least with the current proposals, changes to the arrangement would be due to an internal political decision by NI and not due to being a political football for the wider UK and EU. It also will, obviously, behoove Stormont to reconvene, and that's a positive. If Unionists can achieve a majority in Stormont either among themselves or with other parties and vote to change, I guess you'd have to say fair enough, and go from there.

CrabRevolution

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Interesting that TBP are going to contest every seat unless the deal is dropped.

I suspect that Farage doesn't really want Brexit to happen at all, as it suits him to rail against the EU, whilst not actually having to offer any solutions that leaving actual poses.

I think that's the issue for the Farage and his parties; it's not enough to have an actual stance on anything, they need to be seen as more extreme than the current prevailing position. When the government steals his clothes and actually acts on what Farage says he wanted, he has to step to a more extreme position to stay relevant.

That's how his position changed from 'Leave but have close relationship'>'Leave on our terms, we're stronger than the EU'> 'Leave with no deal' as the UK government adopted all those stances in turn.

If he can't criticise the EU or criticise British politicians for 'betraying' the UK, he has no relevance.

listermint

Bambi wrote: »

It's not permanent. That's magical thinking from people who were asserting that the Irish Government and the EU had the whip hand and would not renegotiate the WA with Johnson. The same lads were purse clutching about Cummings being hell bent on a Hard Brexit when it was obvious that he was using Steve Bannon playbook of overshooting the target to force concessions. And it worked for them

Varadker stuck a bomb under the GFA based on the logic that Unionists will never be able to ignite it. Interesting strategy.

This entire posts is a rewrite of history.

Lets be clear here. The bomb under the GFA was placed by the DUP when the DUP took out ads in the Metro in london pro brexit stance using money that we still dont know the origins of.

So folks like yourself mention names like cummings or bannons. I mention funding and international influence.

For you to turn it around on the Irish Government or indeed by extension Vradkar flies in the fact of all known facts and is in short - yawn

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nothing is permanent really.

The really dangerous time is the changeover from the status quo to whatever comes next. If that involved a border, even one we hoped would be temporary, there was a risk that it would become the new unchangeable status quo.

The arrangement in Johnson's deal is not necessarily permanent, but it means a shift from what we have to a new arrangement which also has no hard border.

So we get past the transition with no border.

Yes, maybe in several years a majority of MLAs will vote for a border, but hey, maybe in a few years the rest of the UK will be rejoining the CU and SM, who knows.

fash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think you are right, and there were several posts here on the forum saying something like that when the details of Varadkar's proposal came out: people saying that is was a climbdown and a bad idea and giving a say to Stormont was nuts.

But after folks thought about it for a while, we mostly concluded that this "frontstop" is better for Ireland than May's deal. It starts day one and is permanent, with no Unless and Until clause except a vote at Stormont. WHich means Unionists would have to vote explicitly for a hard border in order for it to happen. Which would be mad, and would move an actual UI closer.

Aside from the fact that such a hard border would take place at the earliest 6 years after the end of the UK transition period- which there is a fair chance is a few years away itself and assumes that the UK maintains a hard brexit position for all that time (which itself is likely but not certain)

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But after folks thought about it for a while, we mostly concluded that this "frontstop" is better for Ireland than May's deal. It starts day one and is permanent, with no Unless and Until clause except a vote at Stormont. WHich means Unionists would have to vote explicitly for a hard border in order for it to happen. Which would be mad, and would move an actual UI closer.

I don't want to get into speculation about how the vote would pan out in Stormont but the mere fact that it requires a vote to continue means that the new arrangement can't be regarded as permanent to the extent the old one was.

briany

I know the Tory party is publicly saying they won't countenance a deal with the BXP, but I wonder what they're thinking in private? They have to be seriously wargaming the proposal to some extent.

An Ciarraioch

Interesting stat about how 2016 Remainers and Leavers intend to vote in the GE - if you apply the 52:48 ratio to the percentages, it suggests there are roughly 3 Labour Remain voters for every 1 Labour Leaver, with the inverse Tory ratio even more pronounced:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1190217567782215680

Bit cynical

briany wrote: »

I know the Tory party is publicly saying they won't countenance a deal with the BXP, but I wonder what they're thinking in private? They have to be seriously wargaming the proposal to some extent.

I don't think they are going to drop the deal to enter a pact with BXP.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't want to get into speculation about how the vote would pan out in Stormont but the mere fact that it requires a vote to continue means that the new arrangement can't be regarded as permanent to the extent the old one was.

The old one could be replaced at any time by alternative arrangements between the EU and UK without any votes.

ToBeFrank123

A demographic breakdown of the 2017 election if anyone is interested.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election

Labour are popular among the unemployed, students and working class. Unfortunately for them, a lot of people in these groups don't always bother to vote.

Conservatives are popular among the elderly who fortunately for them have nothing better to do than vote in large numbers.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

I know the Tory party is publicly saying they won't countenance a deal with the BXP, but I wonder what they're thinking in private? They have to be seriously wargaming the proposal to some extent.

Farage requires them to abandon the deal they just negotiated. That is not a serious idea at all.

prawnsambo

briany wrote: »

I know the Tory party is publicly saying they won't countenance a deal with the BXP, but I wonder what they're thinking in private? They have to be seriously wargaming the proposal to some extent.

The BP is likely looking at the 20% or thereabouts hard brexiters in the polls and thinking they can get a slice of that in some constituencies. And since the Tories have stolen all their other clothes, that's all they have left. But aligning with the BP would be a mistake. Because then they won't be able to hold on to the moderate brexiters and Tory moderates who are just happy to get a deal done.

quokula

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

A demographic breakdown of the 2017 election if anyone is interested.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election

Labour are popular among the unemployed, students and working class. Unfortunately for them, a lot of people in these groups don't always bother to vote.

Conservatives are popular among the elderly who fortunately for them have nothing better to do than vote in large numbers.

Not sure if Labour's demographic is as limited as you make out there. If you look at it by age, Labour are the biggest party for every age group under 50. And you mentioned the unemployed, but they're also the most popular amongst the employed. The one and only group Tories come out first in is retirees, though you are correct that they turnout in larger numbers than all others.

I wonder if winter weather could change the turnout demographics at all. On the one hand it's harsher for the elderly, on the other hand it's impossible for anyone with a job to vote during daylight which has got to be off putting too.

BorneTobyWilde

Mod: Please do not derail the thread.

PopePalpatine

I wonder what could make a Leave voter choose the Greens, or vice-versa.

ancapailldorcha

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I wonder what could make a Leave voter choose the Greens, or vice-versa.

There is a leftwing case for Euroscepticism which stretches back to the original referendum in 1975 whereby unions were worried about nationalised industries having to compete with state owned companies in Europe. The RMT union backed Brexit in 2016. There is also a misconception on the left that the NHS will not be allowed to continue to exist in the EU.

trellheim

Is it wrong of me to despise Isabel Oakeshott

Like many others, I was prepared to back Boris' deal just to get us out on 31st October. But we haven't left. So why settle for a sell-out?

https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1190266189240524801

even my wife was roaring at her on QT last night and as for panels moderating their language she was the only one to use profanity (the word "bollox")

ToBeFrank123

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Farage requires them to abandon the deal they just negotiated. That is not a serious idea at all.

In other words Farage wants to drag the whole thing out even more.

But then he campaigns on getting Brexit done quickly.

Why do British people give this guy any credibility? He's a loudmouth who loves attention but with nothing of substance to contribute to politics.

Bannasidhe

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Labour are popular among the unemployed, students and working class. Unfortunately for them, a lot of people in these groups don't always bother to vote.

Yet, I know an awful lot of Labour supporters and while they may have at some point in their lives been unemployed and/or a student they are neither of those things now and are most definitely middle class. Some are even upper middle class and one are two are genuinely of the heady echelons of the upper class that Rees-Mogg likes to pretend he's from.

briany

trellheim wrote: »

Is it wrong of me to despise Isabel Oakeshott



https://twitter.com/IsabelOakeshott/status/1190266189240524801

even my wife was roaring at her on QT last night and as for panels moderating their language she was the only one to use profanity (the word "bollox")

I saw her making the point last night that getting abuse by the public is all part of being a politician and they should grow a thicker skin if they're upset by it. She was treading thin ice, there, because while I agree that getting abuse over your political beliefs is a part of being a politician, getting abuse over your race or your gender isn't. What's even more offside is threats of physical violence. Oakeshott didn't really bother to make that distinction. Her happiness to play to the lowest common denominator was pretty worrying, as it is every time a Brexiteer does it. It's a dark path that British political discourse is heading down at the moment.

L1011

Can't see if its been posted already, but Fintan O'Toole is on Have I Got News For You this evening. Shows the growing audience he's getting in the UK

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is a leftwing case for Euroscepticism which stretches back to the original referendum in 1975 whereby unions were worried about nationalised industries having to compete with state owned companies in Europe. The RMT union backed Brexit in 2016. There is also a misconception on the left that the NHS will not be allowed to continue to exist in the EU.

Euroscepticism breaches the traditional Left / Right divide, which partly explains why the UK parliament has been in a total cesspit for the past 3 years.

ToBeFrank123

L1011 wrote: »

Can't see if its been posted already, but Fintan O'Toole is on Have I Got News For You this evening. Shows the growing audience he's getting in the UK

I can't think of anyone less suited to comedy tbh.

Igotadose

Caught some of Farage's announcement this a.m. at Westminster. Sad case of trying to claim some position that what Johnson's pushing for, isn't Brexit. Seems to me Farage is 'dead man walking' and the final nail into his coffin comes with this election. I can see BXP getting zero seats if Farage is their 'leader', dull speech, dull guy, nothing of substance and vacuous talking points like 'clean Brexit' which he'll never define.

Won't miss him, to be fair.

Professor Moriarty

Igotadose wrote: »

Caught some of Farage's announcement this a.m. at Westminster. Sad case of trying to claim some position that what Johnson's pushing for, isn't Brexit. Seems to me Farage is 'dead man walking' and the final nail into his coffin comes with this election. I can see BXP getting zero seats if Farage is their 'leader', dull speech, dull guy, nothing of substance and vacuous talking points like 'clean Brexit' which he'll never define.

Won't miss him, to be fair.

They'll still be able to disrupt proceedings in the European Parliament.

ancapailldorcha

Igotadose wrote: »

Caught some of Farage's announcement this a.m. at Westminster. Sad case of trying to claim some position that what Johnson's pushing for, isn't Brexit. Seems to me Farage is 'dead man walking' and the final nail into his coffin comes with this election. I can see BXP getting zero seats if Farage is their 'leader', dull speech, dull guy, nothing of substance and vacuous talking points like 'clean Brexit' which he'll never define.

Won't miss him, to be fair.

The really easy answer is that Farage is about to watch the foundation of his whole way of life (and bloated income) go up in smoke and so he's of course going to do all he can to prolong it. He seems to think people here give a toss about him. They don't. Remainers despise him and Leavers want Brexit. They'll embrace him only as long as he is useful and not a second more.