Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

SouthLondonUser

cogito wrote: »

Nope. The next PM of the UK is being chosen from people who were elected by the people.

So what? The UK electorate does not get a direct say. The UK electorate does not get to choose which of Boris and Hunt will be the next PM.
The Parliament, elected directly by the people, can always vote for no confidence, so in that sense the next PM of course requires a democratic mandate, but it is indirect democracy.

I will never get why Brexiters are fine with indirect democracy here but get so worked up with indirect democracy in the EU. Can you maybe explain?

cogito wrote: »

Tusk and Juncker were not elected by anyone.

Patently false. But Let’s see, shall we?

Juncker is the President of the European Commission; the President is nominated by the European Council and then elected by the European Parliament. The EU Council comprises the heads of governments of the member states, the President of the EU Council and the President of the EU Commission.

Tusk is the President of the EU Council. The President is appointed, for a 2 and half year term, by the European Council, i.e. by the heads of governments of the member states.

Please remind me what is undemocratic in these processes? Is there anything undemocratic in the way member states choose their heads of governments (who then form the EU Council)? Sure, there are lots of imperfections in the national systems (I have many reservations about the British system), but undemocratic? Is there anything undemocratic about the European Parliament? Or is it the indirect nature of these democratic appointments that bothers you? If so, why does indirect democracy in the UK not bother you?

I ask again: will you finally admit your mistake and apologise? Yes? No? Why?

melanzana

If Johnson becomes PM, I reckon he will agree to a NI only backstop with no time limit. The DUP will have a conniption, but there may be others in HOC who can see the benefits/logic of this approach and may back the Government.

That could move things on significantly, and Johnson will have "done something different" so the EU will agree to another extension, and the backstop will not be so contentious as it will only involve NI, who in general would breath a sigh of relief if it were to happen.

Now let me tell you as an NI born, the DUP will go nuts, but no one cares about them. Farmers, business, the vast majority of the population on NI just want to things to continue as they are. NI voted to remain.

ROI will be happy about it too.

Could be interesting.

SouthLondonUser

I am not sure I am following. When you say NI-only backstop, do you mean that the difference with May's plan would be not on the backstop per se, but the fact that Boris would be willing to consider a different regime between NI and Great Britain? Which would effectively mean border checks when travelling between Belfast and London? Or did you mean something else?

melanzana

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I am not sure I am following. When you say NI-only backstop, do you mean that the difference with May's plan would be not on the backstop per se, but the fact that Boris would be willing to consider a different regime between NI and Great Britain? Which would effectively mean border checks when travelling between Belfast and London? Or did you mean something else?

Border in the Irish Sea. DUP totally against this, but there are only ten of those bigots (sorry, but that's what they are) supporting the Government. Everyone else AFAIS sees this as a compromise solution.

There will be no border between NI and ROI, GFA is upheld, Cross Border Trade and movement of people between North and South carries on.

But yes, you are correct, if UK leaves with no deal, there will be checks on the UK side but not between NI and ROI.

SouthLondonUser

I see. As far as I know this would be unprecedented. There are examples of different fiscal regimes between a country and some of its remote islands (eg Spain and the Canary Islands, with different VAT systems, which is why, when flying from the Canary Islands to London, you should not technically go through the EU gates) but that's precisely only for remote islands. I am not aware of any large country imposing internal border checks with a part of its territory that is not very far away.

melanzana

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I see. As far as I know this would be unprecedented. There are examples of different fiscal regimes between a country and some of its remote islands (eg Spain and the Canary Islands, with different VAT systems, which is why, when flying from the Canary Islands to London, you should not technically go through the EU gates) but that's precisely only for remote islands. I am not aware of any large country imposing internal border checks with a part of its territory that is not very far away.

The distance between NI and mainland Britain is immense, in a cultural sense though. Some HOC members didn't even remember it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and probably still don't!

It's a thorny issue for Westminster. But to me, notwithstanding the opposition from DUP it might just work. We have to have some hope of moving this along if anything resembling a common sense approach is to work.

UK cannot renege on an International Agreement either (GFA). If they did, I am sure that would go down really well in any future Trade negotiations.

There is a total lack of common sense going on AFAIS. Brexit is like a religion, and if you swerve away you are an apostate. That is what is happening now. Imagine that a majority of Tory voters would prefer to see Brexit happening rather than keeping the Union intact. Unbelievable stuff. It's like a cult.

cogito

melanzana wrote: »

The distance between NI and mainland Britain is immense, in a cultural sense though. Some HOC members didn't even remember it was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and probably still don't!

It's a thorny issue for Westminster. But to me, notwithstanding the opposition from DUP it might just work. We have to have some hope of moving this along if anything resembling a common sense approach is to work.

UK cannot renege on an International Agreement either (GFA). If they did, I am sure that would go down really well in any future Trade negotiations.

There is a total lack of common sense going on AFAIS. Brexit is like a religion, and if you swerve away you are an apostate. That is what is happening now. Imagine that a majority of Tory voters would prefer to see Brexit happening rather than keeping the Union intact. Unbelievable stuff. It's like a cult.

The GFA is an agreement, not a treaty. Do you not understand the difference? And why would the UK renege on it anyway. You’re strawmanning.

And Brexit is no more of a religion that the devotion to the EU revealed by you and others on this thread for whom the EU is heaven on earth. You lot are utterly blind to its faults.

melanzana

cogito wrote: »

The GFA is an agreement, not a treaty. Do you not understand the difference? And why would the UK renege on it anyway. You’re strawmanning.

And Brexit is no more of a religion that the devotion to the EU revealed by you and others on this thread for whom the EU is heaven on earth. You lot are utterly blind to its faults.

The UK in the main doesn't give a damn about NI and wishes it would float off into the ether, but it won't and it can't.

I have no devotion to the EU, but use that if it makes you feel better about yourself and your devotion to Brexit.

At the very least the EU is there, we know what it is, it needs some reform for sure, but that isn't going to happen for EU haters if the only thing the UK can offer is BREXIT forever and leave without a voice for change.

Just one more point, what exactly is Brexit? and as I am sure you voted for it, what did you think it meant? No one knows, no one can explain in clear intelligent language with thought behind the implications either. That's why it is a cult. IMO obviously.

No Deal Brexit was not on the ballot paper last time I looked anyway!

You see, we really need to keep the debate civil. Everyone has their own agenda, but the time has come to be realistic.

If Johnson becomes PM, all will change. He will offer NI only backstop.

If he doesn't, nothing else will work and it is crash out which you probably would admire, without analysing the implications of that for everyone, not just yourself.

LHW99

Imagine that a majority of Tory voters would prefer to see Brexit happening rather than keeping the Union intact.

But surely if there is a border in the Irish sea, and NI aligns with ROI the Union is effectively broken anyway?

Just one more point, what exactly is Brexit?

Well my interpretation of the "shall we leave the EU or remain in the EU" question was:
leave the EU = All rules, regulations and strictures that MUST be followed if you are a member of the EU would cease to apply from a given date.

remain in the EU = All rules, regulations and strictures that the UK followed (at that time) as a member of the EU would continue to apply going forward.

melanzana

LHW99 wrote: »

But surely if there is a border in the Irish sea, and NI aligns with ROI the Union is effectively broken anyway?

That poll was taken without reference to a border in the Irish Sea.

Certain Exiteers just do not care what happens to our nation. Cult it is now.