Brexit.

[mouview]

End game really approaching now. Ireland / EU really needs to stand firm and call UK's bluff. No hope in hell a No-Deal will get passed in parliament so it's either a GE or another referendum (cf. Channel 4 last night). Chickens coming home to roost now for Brexiteers.

IMHO I don't think either a GE or another referendum will solve the issue. People are divided nearly 50/50 on Brexit and the two main parties are also split. What it needed from the start was a cross party delegation to negotiate.

If a referendum delivered a clear result one way or another it might finish the debate.
Even the Germans are wondering what's going on;

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/06/britain-foolish-decline-boris-johnson

[seafoid]

There really is no doubt about the DUP. Their hatred of everything Irish exceeds their interest in the economic wellbeing of their constituents. For f**k's sake

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/06/brexit-latest-theresa-may-set-pressure-cabinet-accepting-new/

The provocative assessment was made the DUP's chief whip, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, as he pointed out on Twitter that it would mean the UK "won't have to pay a penny more to [the] EU". Such a scenario, he added, would have "serious consequences" for the Republic of Ireland's economy and force it to suffer a "big increase" in payments to EU coffers.
"

That would be Jeffreys wet dream alright.....a return to the 1950s.

Jeffrey isn't wrong in what a no deal would do to the Irish economy but he forgot to mention the huge damage it will do to the already fragile Northern economy.

Wait till all those big Protestant Farmers are washing their milk down the drain and no money coming from Westminster.

We're all couped if that happens.

Stephen Rea:

« The Belfast I grew up in was a pre-Troubles city, so not progressive in any meaningful way. Put simply, they would not do anything the Free State [Ireland] did. They got rid of the Irish language, they banned the Irish flag, all that stuff.”

Unionists were, and still are, cut off not just from Catholics and from Ireland, but from the world. It’s pure isolation. And it is so drummed into the young that they cannot let go of these views.” « 

[seafoid]

A very good take on Trump and Brexit

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/574867/
The new populist politics is a scam and a lie that exploits anger and fear to gain power. It has no care for the people it supposedly champions and no respect for them. It will deliver nothing—not only because its leaders are almost invariably crooks (although they are), but because they have no plans and no plans to make plans.

[balladmaker]

Barnier playing a blinder in Finland today ... No all-weather backstop, no deal .... over to you Theresa.

And in other news, I see that Sir Jeffrey has stopped colouring his hair, or maybe he's been caught short and is in between colours.

[Ronnie]

Considering that the DUP think that they can pull the plug on the Govt at any stage and if we leave economics aside and accept that everyone in NI, ROI and UK will be a few thousand worse off each year in the event of a no-deal Brexit, how are people affected on a day-to-day basis?  Papers have been written on citizen rights, domicile rights, birth rights, employment rights, tax rights, travel rights, pet rights etc, etc. 

A no-deal Stormont has left the people of NI no worse off.  A 6 person DUP negotiating team led by Simon Hamilton and Edwin Poots agreed a deal with SF only to be shot down by the 10 naysayers at Westminster, led by Nigel Dodds.  Some are agreeable to change and some are chained to the past.  Nationalist/republican/Catholic/liberal people in NI will be better served by a no-deal Stormont but not a no-deal Brexit.  With irony their hopes rest in the British parliament and in British courts.  The DUP have continually failed their own people.  Were unionist people really up-in-arms over 50/50 policing?  Their ghosts will haunt an abandoned Stormont.  Of most pressing concern are alarming prosecutions like this:

“Judgment has been reserved in a judicial review brought by a woman being prosecuted for buying her then 15-year-old daughter abortion pills.
Lawyers for the mother and daughter, who have been granted anonymity, argued the PPS decision to bring criminal charges breaches their human rights.
The woman could face up to a five-year jail term if convicted.
Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan said the three Judges would give their decision as soon as they could.
Unlike other parts of the UK, terminations are only legal in Northern Ireland to protect the pregnant female's life or if there is a risk of serious damage to her well-being.
The mother faces two charges of unlawfully procuring and supplying drugs with intent to procure a miscarriage, contrary to the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.
A lawyer representing the Public Prosecution Service told the court on Wednesday that a possible interpretation of the circumstances was that the 15-year-old was "the potential victim of a criminal offence".
Further issues had been raised about the disclosure of information from a GP, and child and adolescent mental health services as part of the police investigation.
Women 'illegally taking abortion pill at home'
Reaction to Supreme Court abortion ruling
Rise in NI women travelling for abortions
Abortion pills prosecution challenge by NI mother adjourned


Media captionThe law on abortion in Northern Ireland explained
According to the prosecution, the doctor's notes contain disputed "hints" that the daughter felt pressured over taking the medication.
It was also argued that a key question was whether the girl was beyond the 10-week mark in her pregnancy when the pills were sought.
The relevant online questionnaire had been filled in by her mother when it should have been completed by the daughter, the court was told.
The Belfast High Court also heard from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC.
He said that the case amounted to a "collateral" challenge to the ongoing criminal proceedings.
'Both lives matter'
Mr Larkin argued that the challenge was not merely to the decision to prosecute, it was also in some way founded on the supposed legality of the provisions of the legislation that are being enforced by the PPS.
He told the court an attempt to change Northern Ireland's abortion regime had been "comprehensively rejected" by the Stormont Assembly in February 2016.
He said that "the law in Northern Ireland considers that both lives matter" seeking to protect both the mother and child, and he invited the court to continue to uphold that.
In June, a majority of the Supreme Court Judges said that the current law in NI on abortion was incompatible with Article Eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Earlier on Wednesday, the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan, commented that the failure of the legislature to make clear what was to happen as a result of that ruling was "unsatisfactory".
'Procuring and supplying poison'
This is the first time a prosecution relating to Northern Ireland's abortion law has been challenged.
Earlier in the case, it had been claimed that the teenage girl was removed from a classroom and spoken to by police about the abortion pills purchase without her parents knowledge.
But a lawyer for the PSNI responded that the officer involved was focused only on her state of well-being, and never intended to question her.
grey line
How does the law in NI differ from the rest of the UK?
Taking drugs to bring on a miscarriage without doctors' consent is an offence anywhere in the UK under the 1861 act.
But in England, Scotland and Wales, an abortion can be legally carried out up to the 24-week limit and can be legal beyond that limit in cases where the mother's health is threatened or if there is a substantial risk the baby will have serious disabilities.
Women in Northern Ireland only have access to abortions when a woman's life is at risk, or there is a permanent or serious risk to her mental or physical health.
Women in England will be allowed to take an early abortion pill at home, under a government plan due to take effect by the end of the year, bringing the law into line with Scotland and Wales.”  (from BBC)


Leaving aside any EU procurement arguments, the fact that some want the Human Rights Act repealed and that the House of Commons is up to its neck in debating EU/ECHR laws they want to ditch, whoever made the decision to prosecute this case should be held to account.

[seafoid]

Barnier playing a blinder in Finland today ... No all-weather backstop, no deal .... over to you Theresa.

And in other news, I see that Sir Jeffrey has stopped colouring his hair, or maybe he's been caught short and is in between colours.

No deal is what the Brexit era in the ERG want.
I think it is all a pantomime at this stage.

[Ronnie]

Teresa May as Widow Twankey and Nigel Dodds as Aladdin?

[seafoid]

Teresa May as Widow Twankey and Nigel Dodds as Aladdin?

Is she going to accept no deal ?
Oh no she isn't

[Milltown Row2]

Teresa May as Widow Twankey and Nigel Dodds as Aladdin?

Is she going to accept no deal ?
Oh no she isn't

"He's behind you, who? Boris" Well we are coming into the season of Panto!

I much prefer the Dallas storyline, where it was all a dream!

[dec]

Should go in the WTF thread as well

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/raab-s-admission-he-had-not-realised-dover-to-calais-importance-criticised-1.3691052

Britain’s Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has been criticised for admitting he had not realised the importance of the Dover to Calais crossing to UK trade. Alastair Campbell, former spokesman for Labour prime minister Tony Blair described it as “mindblowing”.
The remarks made at an event on Brexit and the tech industry on Wednesday were reported by Jack Blanchard of Politico.

According to Politico, Mr Raab told the event that customers would have less choice in shops unless the frictionless border was maintained and he had not realised how important the crossing was. “I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.

“And that is one of the reasons why we have wanted to make sure we have a specific and very proximate relationship with the EU, to ensure frictionless trade at the border ... I don’t think it is a question so much of the risk of major shortages, but I think probably the average consumer might not be aware of the full extent to which the choice of goods that we have in the stores are dependent on one or two very specific trade routes.
The British government fears that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new customs controls in France could create a bottleneck on the Dover-Calais route.
In recent weeks the British cabinet was told that plans are being drawn up to charter ships to bring in emergency supplies of food and medicines if there is no deal on Brexit and warned that the Dover-Calais route could become blocked by new customs controls on the French side.

Scientist Professor Brian Cox said: “How could it possibly come as a suprise to Dominic Raab that our most important trade gateway is that which is closest geographically to our most important market?”.
Will Straw, formerly executivre director of the Britain Stronger in Europe, campaign tweeted “ Hi @DominicRaab - would it not have been better if you’d done your homework before backing Leave?”

[Ronnie]

Dover is also famed for its white cliffs, Calais for its jungle.  Interesting interview with Dominic Grieve tonight on raidió na bbc ulster.  Should legal advice be shared?

[seafoid]

Should go in the WTF thread as well

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/raab-s-admission-he-had-not-realised-dover-to-calais-importance-criticised-1.3691052

Britain’s Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has been criticised for admitting he had not realised the importance of the Dover to Calais crossing to UK trade. Alastair Campbell, former spokesman for Labour prime minister Tony Blair described it as “mindblowing”.
The remarks made at an event on Brexit and the tech industry on Wednesday were reported by Jack Blanchard of Politico.

According to Politico, Mr Raab told the event that customers would have less choice in shops unless the frictionless border was maintained and he had not realised how important the crossing was. “I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but if you look at the UK and look at how we trade in goods, we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.

“And that is one of the reasons why we have wanted to make sure we have a specific and very proximate relationship with the EU, to ensure frictionless trade at the border ... I don’t think it is a question so much of the risk of major shortages, but I think probably the average consumer might not be aware of the full extent to which the choice of goods that we have in the stores are dependent on one or two very specific trade routes.
The British government fears that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, new customs controls in France could create a bottleneck on the Dover-Calais route.
In recent weeks the British cabinet was told that plans are being drawn up to charter ships to bring in emergency supplies of food and medicines if there is no deal on Brexit and warned that the Dover-Calais route could become blocked by new customs controls on the French side.

Scientist Professor Brian Cox said: “How could it possibly come as a suprise to Dominic Raab that our most important trade gateway is that which is closest geographically to our most important market?”.
Will Straw, formerly executivre director of the Britain Stronger in Europe, campaign tweeted “ Hi @DominicRaab - would it not have been better if you’d done your homework before backing Leave?”

Brexit was /is emotion and not reason.
Why would the DUP want to hurt its voters?

[Ronnie]

Seafoid,  on a separate non-brexit issue - have you seen the Somme mini figures at Olympic Park?

[armaghniac]

Seemingly a leaked letter indicates that May has written to Arlene and Nigel and told them to get used to it.

Dear Arlene and Nigel,
Thank you for your letter of November 1 on the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the European Union. Your letter has raised a series of issues about the nature of the backstop.

On never wanting to use the backstop
The backstop is not, and will never be, our preferred outcome. As I said in my statement to parliament last month, it is an insurance policy that no-one in the UK or the EU wants or expects to use. Our overriding priority is to deliver a future partnership between the EU and the whole of the UK which delivers in full on the commitments we have made... The future relationship will apply across the United Kingdom as a whole.

On the permanence of the backstop
Your letter refers to the backstop as being a permanent arrangement enshrined in international law. We should be clear that the backstop would only ever be temporary. This is inherent in the Article 50 legal base on which the withdrawal agreement will be founded, which cannot aim to establish a permanent relationship. This position will need to be reflected in any backstop legal text we agree with the European Union. Furthermore I have been very clear that the government I lead would not accept being kept in a backstop arrangement indefinitely

On the backstop as a basis for the eventual deal
I fully understood your concerns that the backstop could become a legal mechanism which could be resurrected once we have our future relationship in place. We will ensure that we address them. When our future deal - which of course will avoid a hard border - comes into force the backstop must be legally superseded by that future relationship.

On what the backstop applies to
(The need to avoid a hard border) is why we put forward our proposal in June for a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory in the limited circumstances in which the backstop might apply. As you know, the EU has proposed that, although this option could be negotiated in the future, they want to maintain a Northern Ireland only “backstop to the backstop” in case the future negotiations are unsuccessful. I am clear that I could not accept there being any circumstances or conditions in which that ‘backstop to the backstop’, which would break up the UK customs territory, could come in to force. That is why it is critical that the provision for a UK-EU joint customs territory is legally binding in the Withdrawal Agreement itself, so that no ‘backstop to a backstop’ is required.

On time-limiting the backstop
Your letter also raised the issue of a time limit. We should be clear that a time limit on a UK-wide customs arrangement that simply resulted in a NI only “backstop to the backstop” coming into force would be totally unacceptable. We must preserve NI’s place in the UK customs territory, and I would never accept a time limit proposal which threatened that.

What happens to regulations in the backstop
The government has consistently said that the unique circumstances of NI could require specific alignment solutions in some scenarios, provided they are consistent with the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK.

Single electricity market
Your letter mentions, for example, the single electricity market, which is legally underpinned not by a bilateral arrangement but by single market regulations relating to the EU internal energy market. If we were to reject any targeted alignment of rules needed to maintain this arrangement, which is different to the market in the rest of the UK, then we would be making a choice to undermine security of power supply and disadvantage consumers and businesses across Northern Ireland. That is not a choice any government could or shouuld make.

Human and animal matter checks
Similarly, the all-island single epidemiological unit has for a long time protected animal and human health in NI and Ireland and there are statutory provisions for unique licensing, checks and control powers within the UK in this area.

Greater alignment?
Nonetheless it will clearly be essential that the scope of any alignment in a backstop scenario is carefully circumscribed to what is ‘strictly necessary’ to avoid any hard border. It will also be critical that any arrangements take account of the very important trade between GB and NI. Whilst we recognise there are already more than 30 existing types of ‘regulatory check’ between GB and NI at present, covering a range of products, it is nonetheless essential that arrangements operate sufficient flexibility in any scenario to preserve the UK’s internal market.

GB will continue to copy NI relations in the backstop
We are also reflecting on how to give expression to the pragmatic and political reality that, given that any backstop would apply only in time limited circumstances and for a temporary period with a view to that future UK-wide arrangement, we would not expect regulations to diverge between Great Britain and Northern Ireland during a backstop scenario.

In conclusion
Finally I welcome the commitment of you and your party as a whole to a negotiated outcome for an orderly withdrawal. I do not accept that a no deal outcome should be our preferred scenario, or that it is the most likely outcome. These are important times for our Union, for our economy and for the people and businesses across the UK. It is essential that, at such an important time, we are guided by the national interest and upholding our precious Union for the long-term. We all owe it to future generations to make the right decisions in the national interest.

[weareros]

The backstop to the backstop! In the end, could a little bit of cunning linguistics solve all or will Ulster still say no.