Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

fiveleavesleft

rock22 wrote: »

The Guardian today has an article saying Starmer is silencing his MPs regarding Brexit. They were told "not to focus on problems caused by Brexit when asking questions in parliament, dealing with the media,"

This seems strange, but the rationale seems to be that because Starmer lent Labour support ot the deal that any criticism will come back against them. From the article it seems many Labour MPS are unhappy to go along with what they call radio silence. It is quite possible that Brexit will do more harm to Labour than it will to the Tories.

He's only seeking to keep his MP's in line with himself. Brexit hasn't been an issue for him since 2019, he has no interest in it. Will be interesting to watch if there will be any serious push back against him.

20silkcut

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well to be fair to him, while I do think characterising it as a constitutional change is a bit dramatic, it seems to me that there are three options:

1. Allign NI with UK and alienate nationalists contrary to spirit, if not exact wording of GFA;
2. Aliign NI with Ireland and alienate unionists contrary to their idea of constitutional statehood as possibly guaranteed by their right to remain in the UK under the GFA (which they largely don't accept in any event); or
3. Do what the GFA is all about at its core, which is finding a fudge or middle position that both sides can agree to.

The geopolitical reality is that the Northern Ireland protocol has chosen no. 1 for two very important reasons - the majority of NI citizens voted against Brexit and, whether Unionists like Trimble understand this or not, NI is far more important to the EU than it is to the UK, and the EU has much greater bargaining power. Hence 1. was chosen instead of 2.

Since the NI protocol has come into effect, we have seen a dramatic shift in Unionism to the extreme - DUP voters are turning towards TUV, and now we even see Nobel Peace Lauret David Trimble trying to undo the peace in Northern Ireland, presumably to keep UUP relevant to its voter base.

Ultimately I think everyone should be looking towards 3. if possible - just fudge it and stop agitating.

4. Border on the bann river down to the mourne mountains. Surely an overwhelming majority for and against on each side of such a border.

CelticRambler

prawnsambo wrote: »

Also (afaik), there's a one month period before it comes into effect and in the meantime, there are consultations built in to the process. So there's never a situation where it's invoked and put into practice immediately.

Potentially there might be, and for that reason it's written into the Protocol: Annex 7, Para 3 (does anybody ever read beyond the Articles these days? :P )

When exceptional circumstances requiring immediate action exclude prior examination, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may apply forthwith the protective measures strictly necessary to remedy the situation.

But, despite all the huffing and puffing of our resident Irish(ish) EUrophobes, Johnson & Co's threats to invoke Art. 16 because "reasons" is a long long way from exceptional circumstances, and as this incarnation of the Tory party never has any idea of what they're going to do next, they'd struggle to define what measures would be strictly necessary. The EU, on the other hand, were very, very, very specific about what they were thinking of doing, and why.

And that's why Trimble & Co's "Mutual Enforcement" proposal is doomed to failure: the EU acts within the law, and with a clear purpose; those in charge of GB seem to have forgotten everything they ever knew about the law and how&when it should be enforced.

yagan

20silkcut wrote: »

4. Border on the bann river down to the mourne mountains. Surely an overwhelming majority for and against on each side of such a border.

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever this notion is mentioned it's always overlooked that the majority of Irish in northern Ireland actually live east of the Bann.

20silkcut

yagan wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever this notion is mentioned it's always overlooked that the majority of Irish in northern Ireland actually live east of the Bann.

Was the brexit vote not in the majority east of the Bann.

Sam Russell

yagan wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever this notion is mentioned it's always overlooked that the majority of Irish in northern Ireland actually live east of the Bann.

West Belfast is East of the Bann - as is Newry.

10000maniacs

Boris Johnson has spent the last five years whinging about unelected EU bureaucrats deciding UK policies, but yet this week he appoints unelected bureaucrat David Frost as Minister for Brexit.
Hypocrisy not?

johnnyskeleton

Enzokk wrote: »

We are just a few steps away from violence if those on the Unionist side doesn't temper anger and face reality. But it seems like they have chosen stand there with the fuel in hand instead of fire extinguishers.

During the Troubles, Republicans targetted manifestations of the British State, Loyalist paramilitaries and occasionally civilians. The Loyalists targetted civilians and occasionally Republican paramilitaries.

The fear of a hard border is that Republicans would target the border installations i.e. manifestations of the British State and the Irish "partitionist" acceptance of the border. This is why that was seen as a return to the Troubles.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, what are they going to do? I dont see how blowing up her majestys royal customs check is in keeping with loyalty to that particular head of state. So they can talk about violence but it would really be a strange state of affairs to have loyalists and the British government at loggerheads with each other instead of their traditional unofficial cooperation.

No wonder SF are absolutely schtum about this. Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake etc

johnnyskeleton

10000maniacs wrote: »

Boris Johnson has spent the last five years whinging about unelected EU bureaucrats deciding UK policies, but yet this week he appoints unelected bureaucrat David Frost as Minister for Brexit.
Hypocrisy not?

Upper house unelected, head of state unelected, no wirtten consitution, local devloved governments operately solely at the grace of westminster. Overall the UK is about a 6 out of 10 for effort in the democracy stakes

J Mysterio

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Look, the reality is that Brexit is only an issue for those wishing to denigrate it.

It is definitely not for dilettantes anymore.

So what is the worst that can happen now, remember we all thought the worst implications would rest with the UK, but that seems ok to me at the moment.

Don’t see any panic.

You seem to drop into the thread once a fortnight or so to make this type of strange, uninformed comment and then pop off again.

If you took the trouble to actually read the thread in the meantime, you might understand the realitly a little better. Things are not 'ok'.

'The reality is that Brexit is only an issue for those who wish to denigrate it'. What?

'It is definitely not for dilettantes any more'. What?!

Strazdas

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Upper house unelected, head of state unelected, no wirtten consitution, local devloved governments operately solely at the grace of westminster. Overall the UK is about a 6 out of 10 for effort in the democracy stakes

The lack of a written constitution is really hurting them (and unfortunately leaves their government and political system wide open to be being taken over by the worst and most corrupt people in the country, as has happened since the referendum result).

Capt'n Midnight

yagan wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that whenever this notion is mentioned it's always overlooked that the majority of Irish in northern Ireland actually live east of the Bann.

An area that would have a sizeable unionist majority for the foreseeable future would only be drop kicking the can like last time.

In terms of UK infrastructure those West of the Bann might as well be living in another country.

Without EU funds the future for the UK's regions is bleak especially if they continue to focus on central projects like HS2. A 20 minute saving on a Manchester commute will mean it will probably still be cheaper to fly Glasgow - London than take the fast train.

CelticRambler

Strazdas wrote: »

The lack of a written constitution is really hurting them (and unfortunately leaves their government and political system wide open to be being taken over by the worst and most corrupt people in the country, as has happened since the referendum result).

Well, now, to be fair, the US has a written constitution and was perfectly well able to elect themselves a government composed of some of "the worst and most corrupt people in the country" (or possibly even in the world :pac: )

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Upper house unelected, head of state unelected, no wirtten consitution, local devloved governments operately solely at the grace of westminster. Overall the UK is about a 6 out of 10 for effort in the democracy stakes

The problem is that the UK was governed for centuries on the basis of Parliamentary conventions that nobody would break, ie the "good chap" rule. This has come under strain recently as we have a Conservative party which was originally concerned with shrinking the state and enriching its donors. Now, it's hithced itself to the culture war because any sort of long term thought in the Conservative party has been abandoned.

Take the nonsense of the new free speech champion for instance. Conservatives in the press love to bleat about cancel culture, no platforming and "woke" but a study by the Times of 15,000 appearances on University campuses found only 6 cancellations. 4 were due to incorrect paperwork, 1 was a grifter and the last was Jeremy Corbyn who needed a bigger venue and yet we have Gavin Williamson soapboxing about while Oliver Dowden wails about museums.

The head of state problem (if you see it as such) is masked by the presence of a competent incumbent who doesn't stick her nose into Parliament's affairs. Once she abdicates or dies, the throne passes to Prince Charles who unfortunately holds quite repugnant and antiquated views and is essentially a royal version of Jacob Rees-Mogg. We need an elected head of state but in this age of culture war nobody's going to touch that, especially not Keir Starmer who I'm surprised hasn't tattooed a Union flag to his forhead at this point.

I don't think the devolved governments have anything to fear now but a constitution guaranteeing them would be nice. The conventions have shown themselves to be insufficient given how many bad actors now occupy the offices of state. Local councils have been denuded as well and I'm not sure what the point of mayors like Andy Burnham are beyond symbolism and acting within a very small political remit. It's a nice idea but more devolution to the regions would probably ease the division in this country. Sadly, it's not in the nature of power to decentralise.

The problem of complaining about an unwritten constitution is who would write such a document. Boris Johnson? Priti Patel? How would it be enacted? By referendum or by Parliamentary vote? It's not going to happen because governments don't want checks on power as necessary as they may be.

Kermit.de.frog

DUP and others are off to court.

I don't expect they have a chance of winning but if they did where would that leave things?


https://twitter.com/SemproniusGrac/status/1363508780722446337

Are we heading ultimately to a referendum on the protocol?

P.S the DUP never supported the GFA, now they seek it's protection.

Jizique

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

During the Troubles, Republicans targetted manifestations of the British State, Loyalist paramilitaries and occasionally civilians. The Loyalists targetted civilians and occasionally Republican paramilitaries.

The fear of a hard border is that Republicans would target the border installations i.e. manifestations of the British State and the Irish "partitionist" acceptance of the border. This is why that was seen as a return to the Troubles.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, what are they going to do? I dont see how blowing up her majestys royal customs check is in keeping with loyalty to that particular head of state. So they can talk about violence but it would really be a strange state of affairs to have loyalists and the British government at loggerheads with each other instead of their traditional unofficial cooperation.

No wonder SF are absolutely schtum about this. Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake etc

Be funny to see “loyalists” lob mortars onto Downing Street and Heathrow and blow up the government hotel during conference season.
In reality, they will return to killing innocent Catholics in an attempt to provoke a reaction.

yagan

Jizique wrote: »

Be funny to see “loyalists” lob mortars onto Downing Street and Heathrow and blow up the government hotel during conference season.
In reality, they will return to killing innocent Catholics in an attempt to provoke a reaction.

Which in turn will alienate further the Loyalist appeasing "shared island" crowd in our current government.

Their recent appointments to the Gardai of outsiders from British realms was a serious miscalculation and will undermine an all island approach to tackling British nationalist terrorism.

J Mysterio

This has blown my mind. This is the level of the opposition in the UK right now.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1363427430447407105?s=20

Whatever about Corbyn being innefecutal, Starmer may aswell be a Tory MP. Scandalous.

fiveleavesleft

J Mysterio wrote: »

This has blown my mind. This is the level of the opposition in the UK right now.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1363427430447407105?s=20

Whatever about Corbyn being innefecutal, Starmer may aswell be a Tory MP. Scandalous.

I like that shot of Sophie's face, even she was taken aback. Starmer has had a poor week. A flat speech, dreadful promo pics, getting caught out by ITV & now this. He needs to buck up his ideas.

Spanish Eyes

UK is laughing at EU.

No troubles for them, but maybe some for EU eh?

They don’t care, they have food a plenty and that is the key.

Peregrinus

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

UK is laughing at EU.

No troubles for them, but maybe some for EU eh?

They don’t care, they have food a plenty and that is the key.

UK food security has been declining for the past 30 years, and the UK now produces just 60% of the food it needs to eat; the rest has to be imported, and most of it - especially fresh food - comes from the EU.

Even now, there are more than 2,000 charitable food banks in the UK, and demand for their services is rising. Nearly half a million families with children require emergency food from food banks.

In short, the UK's food supply situation is not one which can easily withstand shocks or disruption.

Quite why all this would make Brexiters laught at the EU is not entirely clear, but we must make some allowances for them. God knows they have little enough to laugh about.

J Mysterio

J Mysterio wrote: »

This has blown my mind. This is the level of the opposition in the UK right now.

https://twitter.com/ToryFibs/status/1363427430447407105?s=20

Whatever about Corbyn being innefecutal, Starmer may aswell be a Tory MP. Scandalous.

He is probably aware that calling for resignations right now could backfire badly for him and the Labour party.

Zubeneschamali

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

They don’t care, they have food a plenty and that is the key.

Imagine thinking that Brexit is a proven success because the UK has not run out of food yet.

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Imagine thinking that Brexit is a proven success because the UK has not run out of food yet.

Was it Johnson who said "there will be adequate food"?

As promises go, it lacks a certain something. But small victories and all that.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

He is probably aware that calling for resignations right now could backfire badly for him and the Labour party.

There is no effective opposition in the UK today.

prawnsambo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There is no effective opposition in the UK today.

Has there ever been? Just racking my brains to think of one in the last twenty years and coming up empty.

Professor Moriarty

prawnsambo wrote: »

Has there ever been? Just racking my brains to think of one in the last twenty years and coming up empty.

You're right. Blair was the last truly effective Labour opposition leader.

ArmaniJeanss

prawnsambo wrote: »

Has there ever been? Just racking my brains to think of one in the last twenty years and coming up empty.

There's not a lot that the opposition can do, so not really sure how we can measure effectiveness.
But clearly the Liberals under Charles Kennedy (in the parliament up to the 2005 election) and Nick Clegg (2010) did well, and David Cameron was clever enough to use his networking to get the likes of Murdoch back onside, though aided by fatigue with 13 years of Labour.

Ed Miliband was good in opposition as well, though the Coalition government was such a mess that it was relatively easy. Often forgotten that Miliband looked to be a likely winner all through that parliament until a disastrous campaign (edstone, bacon sandwich etc).

Then Jeremy Corbyn had a really good 6 months in the run-up 2017.

54and56

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Imagine thinking that Brexit is a proven success because the UK has not run out of food yet.

It nicely summarises the level of critical thinking undertaken by pro Brexit voters.

fiveleavesleft

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You're right. Blair was the last truly effective Labour opposition leader.

Interesting though that he is taking this softie, don't oppose approach after chats with Blair, Brown & Mandy.
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1363780122566868992