Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What was the reason for the rise in DUP support at the last election (if there was one), if you don't mind me asking?
They actually lost support at the last election, similar to May.
I think your question really goes back to how did they end up in power instead of the UUP.
The GFA was opposed by the DUP and after it was ratified by a referendum they whipped up the Unionist support in a similar fashion to the Brexit scaremongering.
They took a very hardline and Trimble was portrayed as having sold out. They nipped away at it and the assembly, didn't really get up and running until 2006/7.
That polarised the vote in the North and ironically you were left with Paisley (DUP) and McGuinness (Sinn Fein) leading the two sides of the assembly instead of Trimble and Hume who was so instrumental in brokering peace, but never going to have a large party contingency. The SDLP and the UUP suffered in the aftermath of the deal being made.

See the History section here for a brief explanation;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Assembly
 
The DUP arent the largest party...they have the same number of seats as Sinn Fein....but Sinn Feinn wont sit at Westminster

Giving NI a referendum on point 2 firstly isnt fair because secondly it is essentially making it a border poll...you cant FORCE a disguised border poll upon us...that WILL reignite the troubles
I agree with you Alex but worse than a border poll is leaving it with the NI assembly, because as the largest sitting Unionist party the DUP would have a veto on aligning with the republic.
As I said it is a Brexit solution circumventing the GFA.
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ohnson-and-grant-a-brexit-extension-2vg9g7b30

Article text:


The European Union could grant another Brexit delay even if the letter making a request for an extension beyond October 31 is not signed by the prime minister.

European leaders are on standby to hold an emergency Brexit summit in the last week of the month if Boris Johnson fails to get a new withdrawal agreement past the House of Commons in the next two weeks.

Under the terms of the Benn act, the government must ask for a further extension to the Article 50 process if he does not have Commons approval for a new agreement or the support of MPs for a no-deal Brexit by October 19.

Mr Johnson has said repeatedly that he will not comply with the legislation but it is understood that the government as represented by the cabinet secretary, as head of the civil service, would make the request and accept a further delay.

“I am sure the system will produce what we need to get to an extension,” a senior EU source said. “We don’t care who it is, whether it is the prime minister or another representative of the executive.”

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee and a senior Christian Democrat, said that an extension would be needed because Mr Johnson’s latest Brexit plans were “not serious and violate the law”, both in terms of the EU’s single market and the Benn act.

“He wants to ask the EU not to extend the deadline and proposes a backstop that de facto is a hard border,” he tweeted. “Not least to protect the sovereignty of the British parliament, EU should give long extension.”


Many senior European diplomatic sources said that the request for one extension until January 31 could come from “the head of government or head of state” which means either the prime minister or a representative of the Crown, embodied by the civil service. “What Article 50 says and requires is that the extension is agreed with the UK. Strictly speaking it is silent on whether there should be a request or where the request should come from,” a source said.

A Whitehall source told The Times that the extension letter could be sent by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, or Sir Tim Barrow, the UK’s ambassador to the EU, should the prime minister refuse to sign or send it.

One European ambassador said that EU leaders had agreed to “really look at the situation in the UK and see what the political argument would be for such a request” at the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on October 17.

“People realise how difficult the situation is in the UK,” they said. “If there’s a request to extend because they need time to come to a national consensus on where they want to go, that’s always preferable to no deal. I don’t think [any leader] is willing to take the political risk, regardless of everything, of running into a no-deal situation.”

According to diplomats, no European leader — not even President Macron, the most hardline — has reached the point of wanting to veto an extension and force Britain out. “Europe will have no other choice if there’s an extension request than to grant it,” said an official. “Politically, I don’t see how we could refuse it. The Europeans don’t want to take the responsibility for no deal.”
 
I agree with you Alex but worse than a border poll is leaving it with the NI assembly, because as the largest sitting Unionist party the DUP would have a veto on aligning with the republic.
As I said it is a Brexit solution circumventing the GFA.

Maybe im misunderstanding it...but as of Feb this year DUP and Sinn Fein have 27 seats each....DUP dont have any veto
 
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ohnson-and-grant-a-brexit-extension-2vg9g7b30

Article text:


The European Union could grant another Brexit delay even if the letter making a request for an extension beyond October 31 is not signed by the prime minister.

European leaders are on standby to hold an emergency Brexit summit in the last week of the month if Boris Johnson fails to get a new withdrawal agreement past the House of Commons in the next two weeks.

Under the terms of the Benn act, the government must ask for a further extension to the Article 50 process if he does not have Commons approval for a new agreement or the support of MPs for a no-deal Brexit by October 19.

Mr Johnson has said repeatedly that he will not comply with the legislation but it is understood that the government as represented by the cabinet secretary, as head of the civil service, would make the request and accept a further delay.

“I am sure the system will produce what we need to get to an extension,” a senior EU source said. “We don’t care who it is, whether it is the prime minister or another representative of the executive.”

Norbert Röttgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee and a senior Christian Democrat, said that an extension would be needed because Mr Johnson’s latest Brexit plans were “not serious and violate the law”, both in terms of the EU’s single market and the Benn act.

“He wants to ask the EU not to extend the deadline and proposes a backstop that de facto is a hard border,” he tweeted. “Not least to protect the sovereignty of the British parliament, EU should give long extension.”


Many senior European diplomatic sources said that the request for one extension until January 31 could come from “the head of government or head of state” which means either the prime minister or a representative of the Crown, embodied by the civil service. “What Article 50 says and requires is that the extension is agreed with the UK. Strictly speaking it is silent on whether there should be a request or where the request should come from,” a source said.

A Whitehall source told The Times that the extension letter could be sent by Sir Mark Sedwill, the cabinet secretary, or Sir Tim Barrow, the UK’s ambassador to the EU, should the prime minister refuse to sign or send it.

One European ambassador said that EU leaders had agreed to “really look at the situation in the UK and see what the political argument would be for such a request” at the meeting of the European Council in Brussels on October 17.

“People realise how difficult the situation is in the UK,” they said. “If there’s a request to extend because they need time to come to a national consensus on where they want to go, that’s always preferable to no deal. I don’t think [any leader] is willing to take the political risk, regardless of everything, of running into a no-deal situation.”

According to diplomats, no European leader — not even President Macron, the most hardline — has reached the point of wanting to veto an extension and force Britain out. “Europe will have no other choice if there’s an extension request than to grant it,” said an official. “Politically, I don’t see how we could refuse it. The Europeans don’t want to take the responsibility for no deal.”
That's all very well and no doubt an accurate transmission of the gossip in the EU's equivalent of the bar parlour of the Anglers Rest. The harsh reality is they won't be able to 'protect our sovereignty' for us if a BoJo/Farage Axis sweeps to power in January as has already been pointed out on here several times.
 
Last edited:
Maybe im misunderstanding it...but as of Feb this year DUP and Sinn Fein have 27 seats each....DUP dont have any veto
It has to get support from Nationalist and Unionist side of the assembly I thought.

It's too ambiguous in what we've seen in the wording of the Tory proposal so far;

Here's the Assembly's procedures as they stand;
Procedure[edit]
The Assembly has three primary mechanisms to ensure effective power-sharing:

  • in appointing ministers to the Executive (except for the Minister of Justice), the D'Hondt method is followed so that ministerial portfolios are divided among the parties in proportion to their strength in the Assembly.[25] This means that all parties with a significant number of seats are entitled to at least one minister;
  • certain resolutions must receive "cross community support", or the support of a minimum number of MLAs from both communities, to be passed by the Assembly. Every MLA is officially designated as either nationalist, unionist or other. The election of the Speaker,[26]appointment of the Minister of Justice, any changes to the standing orders[27] and the adoption of certain money bills must all occur with cross-community support. The election of the First and deputy First Ministers previously occurred by parallel consent but the positions are now filled by appointment; and
  • any vote taken by the Assembly can be made dependent on cross-community support if a petition of concern is presented to the Speaker. A petition of concern may be brought by 30 or more MLAs.[28] In such cases, a vote on proposed legislation will only pass if supported by a weighted majority (60%) of members voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting. Effectively this means that, provided enough MLAs from a given community agree, that community (or a sufficiently large party in that community) can exercise a veto over the Assembly's decisions. The purpose is to protect each community from legislation that would favour the other community.
The Assembly has the power to call for witnesses and documents, if the relevant responsibility has been transferred to its remit.[29] Proceedings are covered by privilege in defamation law.[30]
 
Last edited:
Even then, the geste of this argument seems rather suspect. I mean, lets try to translate it to rocket science:
remainer: I believe we lack the info to conclude with sufficient certainty that our untested vessel won't blow up out there if we try to leave planet earth
leaver: you can't predict the outcome with youre science, so lets go for it.....
Try again with the presumption...…..

The UK is leaving the EU

…..look forwards to responding to your reply
 
Well put. This was always the case but some Brexit supporters failed to grasp it.

We are circa 12% of Germany's car export market. The EU is more than 50% if ours. Netherland exports circa $30bn per year to us, we export 10x that to the EU. Etc etc etc.

However, very unfortunately, we voted to leave. So very reluctantly I've accepted we must. We cannot simply choose to ignore the referendum result. Sadly.

The ENORMOUS fuck up was losing the bloody thing in the first place.
so...….?

If we accept the here and now - that we are actually leaving...……………….
 
It has two get support from Nationalist and Unionist side of the assembly I thought.

Feck knows they probably make it up as they go along....but having the same number of seats surely means they cant push anything through Stormont....think they (DUP) lost their seats to Alliance (possibly Green too)
 
Why don't people who want to leave the EU, to 'give us more self determination' & 'do deals with other countries outside' consider that large countries such as USA & China will use our needy situation, to force us to accept stuff we don't want ?

They absolutely will.
You really cannot look at the 'here and now' can you

Such shit you post - IMHO
 
It has to get support from Nationalist and Unionist side of the assembly I thought.

It's too ambiguous in what we've seen in the wording of the Tory proposal so far;

Here's the Assembly's procedures as they stand;
Procedure[edit]
The Assembly has three primary mechanisms to ensure effective power-sharing:

  • in appointing ministers to the Executive (except for the Minister of Justice), the D'Hondt method is followed so that ministerial portfolios are divided among the parties in proportion to their strength in the Assembly.[25] This means that all parties with a significant number of seats are entitled to at least one minister;
  • certain resolutions must receive "cross community support", or the support of a minimum number of MLAs from both communities, to be passed by the Assembly. Every MLA is officially designated as either nationalist, unionist or other. The election of the Speaker,[26]appointment of the Minister of Justice, any changes to the standing orders[27] and the adoption of certain money bills must all occur with cross-community support. The election of the First and deputy First Ministers previously occurred by parallel consent but the positions are now filled by appointment; and
  • any vote taken by the Assembly can be made dependent on cross-community support if a petition of concern is presented to the Speaker. A petition of concern may be brought by 30 or more MLAs.[28] In such cases, a vote on proposed legislation will only pass if supported by a weighted majority (60%) of members voting, including at least 40% of each of the nationalist and unionist designations present and voting. Effectively this means that, provided enough MLAs from a given community agree, that community (or a sufficiently large party in that community) can exercise a veto over the Assembly's decisions. The purpose is to protect each community from legislation that would favour the other community.
The Assembly has the power to call for witnesses and documents, if the relevant responsibility has been transferred to its remit.[29] Proceedings are covered by privilege in defamation law.[30]
Tbf any changes to the GFA should carry a majority among both communities and if they had that I'd have no problem with it. However I'll keep my stance that a super majority in favour of a United Ireland should carry the day in a border poll even in the instance of a small unionist minority on the matter.
 
What you understand and what is true/accurate are most likely two very different things.
You may think so...….

Unless the sycophants are successful - I will be proven to be spot on

I really believe this and in 10 years time you will seek me out to grovelling apologise for the shite you have posted - I really hope that you are man enough to do that
 
Possibly; see the edit I've put to the first response.

aaah the old Petition of Concern......that, and the Irish Language Act are the 2 main reason we have noone at Stormont. The DUP have (allegedly) misused it...and have done so on things like gay marriage rights, abortion etc.....some may consider changing their mind about it now.....although, the loss of those seats by the DUP means they cant necessarilyu "activate" it
 
You may think so...….

Unless the sycophants are successful - I will be proven to be spot on

I really believe this and in 10 years time you will seek me out to grovelling apologise for the shite you have posted - I really hope that you are man enough to do that

Not sure how you are going to be proven right when you have never clearly articulated what you think the issue is (the issue that we all don't understand).

And if we are limiting this to the backstop's lack of fettering (i'm genuinely unsure what you are going to be proven right about) then can we not all now agree that May's WA deal is 100% dead.
 
Tbf any changes to the GFA should carry a majority among both communities and if they had that I'd have no problem with it. However I'll keep my stance that a super majority in favour of a United Ireland should carry the day in a border poll even in the instance of a small unionist minority on the matter.
That's to the GFA @aguero93:20 , the potential I see in this is that it is using the existing Assembly Laws which were brought about by the GFA, to not get it as far as the GFA, if you see what I mean.
There needs to be more meat on the bones before anyone down here could sign up for that, which means an extension and this being the start of a negotiation deal, not a Fait complé.
 
aaah the old Petition of Concern......that, and the Irish Language Act are the 2 main reason we have noone at Stormont. The DUP have (allegedly) misused it...and have done so on things like gay marriage rights, abortion etc.....some may consider changing their mind about it now.....although, the loss of those seats by the DUP means they cant necessarilyu "activate" it
It needs nailing down.
You can't accept any way it can be misused.
 
Just in from Arlene Foster - who said Irony is dead...

Simon Coveney’s remarks are deeply unhelpful, obstructionist and intransigent. The Irish government’s majoritarian desire to ride roughshod over unionism was one of the reasons why the Withdrawal agreement was rejected.

Mr Coveney’s rejection of a reasonable offer is paving the road for a no deal exit because unionism will not allow
Northern Ireland to be trapped at the whim of Dublin or the EU. We will not buy that.

The Irish government’s preparedness to dump the consent principle for their country’s expediency is foolish in the extreme and sends a very clear message to unionists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top