Even if the DUP's confidence and supply arrangement was to come to an end in the near future, excluding the north from a clean break would require the approval of the Stormont assembly and executive, so I'm thinking the DUP would presumably have that as a back-up veto.Originally Posted by osarusan
I think it's a good deal for the UK in the sense that it more or less saves it from the madness of a hard Brexit. It is a bad day for the DUP and hard Brexiteers, mind.
Fintan O'Toole agrees: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...exit-1.3320096
The full piece is excellent and well worth a read.
I think that one of the issues for the DUP was that, whatever happens, they didn't want to be treated in any way differently or considered separately from the rest of the UK, which they've got, for the moment at least.
Last edited by osarusan; 08/12/2017 at 11:51 AM.
I imagine the Brexiteers in Britain are dreaming of getting rid of NI today.
Last edited by The Fly; 08/12/2017 at 12:07 PM.
If (or when) at some point in the future, the UK, including NI, decides that 'distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland', thus freeing itself from the stranglehold outlined by O'Toole above, what impact will that have on the (rest of the) UK's ability to vary from the rules of the internal market and customs union?
I ask because of this line (in bold), put in to assuage the fears of the DUP:What does 'in all circumstances' mean? Does it mean up until (but not beyond) the UK including NI deciding that 'distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland'? Or does it refer to even after such a decision was made?"In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market"
Because if it refers to a future even after such a decision was made, and 'unfettered access' mean that NI and the rest of the UK must be identical in terms of rules and regulations, then the UK would never be free to change its rules and regulations.
Last edited by osarusan; 08/12/2017 at 1:03 PM.
I suppose I should have said that the deal looks better for Ireland than the Monday one. I should realise that doesn't necessarily make it bad for the UK, just a specific kind of outlook in the UK.
The entire 90 year history of NI is one of being treated differently from ES&W. Devolution decades before anywhere else, separate party system, 30 year civil war. An effective sea border during WW2 as well as the Troubles (as per Newton Emerson quoted above). Compared with all that, abortion and marriage are small beer.
Put simply Unionism has always been mainly about separatism from Dublin.
Last edited by Gather round; 08/12/2017 at 1:38 PM.
Today's deal is a capitulation because the Brexit project is essentially finished - in so far as the UK will most likely remain fully aligned to the single market and customs union (whilst now having no say in their nature and operation?) - but it's all being portrayed as a success for May whilst disgruntled Tories are keeping their concerns private. Has Rees-Mogg commented yet? Like Farage, he's sure to be livid, but he seems to be lying low.
There's a lot of perception management going on, which undoubtedly influences the general British public's interpretation and mood. It's difficult for opposition to fight against that when a total capitulation is being disingenuously framed as a triumph by the media. The ambiguity of the language of the agreed text (which allows Brexiteers to say they're still leaving the single market and customs union, whilst commentators like Fintan O'Toole can, at the same time, compellingly argue that Brexit is in fact finished) represents an essential failure on the part of the British government, but that very failure is frustratingly enabling the government to simultaneously claim "success" and that's what people are hearing today. It's paradoxical and galling that the British government's "success" appears to be its failure!
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 08/12/2017 at 5:16 PM.
The DUP were shown up goodo today. It was so enjoyable to watch them squirm there way into some sort victorious stance. Even in the end they were still saying they weren't happy with what had been agreed and accused Leo and Co for being aggressive and bullies.
I have to say the whole episode has shown that Varadkar and Coveney really know how to play senior hurling. It's great. Been a great week of politics.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
To be fair, there's another reason why they'd be able to outhurl Arlene and co.
The DUP has done us a big favour. Not only have they protected our interests, they have advanced them to effectively maintain the current status quo with the North and now the rest of the UK. What the UK can independently do in the future will now be severely curtailed to align with the customs union and single market, of which Ireland has a say and the UK doesn't.
Tiocfaidh Arlene!
I do have some sympathy for those who voted Leave in England and now feel somewhat cheated by this outcome. I have even more sympathy for those who voted Remain and now have a kind of '2nd class' status in respect of their rights compared to a unionist in NI who can avail of their entitlement to an Irish passport.
Last edited by The Fly; 08/12/2017 at 6:38 PM.
This appears to be a commitment that there will be no hard border even if the worst possible eventuality transpires and the UK and EU can't agree a trade deal. I heard Varadkar confirming the same on the radio a while ago.
Actually, Nigel Dodds was on BBC NI's 'Newsline' yesterday evening (at 5m10s in link) claiming that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and that yesterday's paper "will disappear" if there is no final trade deal. His prioritisation of getting to phase two of talks ahead of border clarity was undoubted hard Brexiteering and his words yesterday worryingly appear to fly in the face of Varadkar's words (and indeed the words of the document itself). Varadkar said the commitments agreed by the UK were "bulletproof", but has he forgotten who he's dealing with?
This morning then, we have Michael Gove telling British voters that they "can change the EU deal if they don't like it" and that the UK will have "full freedom to diverge from EU law on the single market and customs union". Full freedom to diverge is wholly incompatible with full alignment where necessary to maintain a soft border in Ireland.
Andrea Leadsom has been saying similar things to Gove; essentially that the UK could make a deal and then renege on it. What sort of approach is that? The UK would quickly lose whatever credibility it has if it was conduct itself in such a manner. What effect do they think such a duplicitous approach will have on countries considering a future deal with the UK? Nobody will want to make deals with you if you can't be trusted to uphold your side of the bargain.
The sheer quantity of varying interpretations of what yesterday's paper means is astonishing and seriously concerning. Something will have to give eventually.
The difference in the post-agreement words of Varadkar and Foster was very striking in terms of possibly revealing who really came out on top from these negotiations and whose triumphant tone is mere bravado; Varadkar confirmed that "we have achieved all of our goals" whilst Foster admitted that "there are still matters [the DUP] would have liked to see clarified" and that her party had agreed to things about which they weren't wholly satisfied because they "ran out of time essentially". I'm not sure how the DUP can boast victory in light of the wounded reality conceded by Foster's words. Perhaps those who remain somewhat concerned by the multitude of interpretations doing the rounds at the minute can take some comfort in that.
Just reading paragraph 52 of yesterday's paper:
I'm guessing that could mean that Irish citizens from the north will possibly maintain EU representation and voting rights? I'm pretty sure Guy Verhofstadt had aired that idea before. Meanwhile, whilst British citizenship will no longer be an EU citizenship (meaning no such rights for UK citizens), it does nevertheless seem astonishing that Britain could be tied into the single market and customs union (because the north of Ireland, with which Britain must be aligned, must be tied in to the all-island economy) but have no actual representation to influence the terms of engagement. That's an awful deal really. And what will they pay for the honour of leaving themselves in this significantly worse off position compared to before? Up to £50 billion. You couldn't make this stuff up.
A piece by Jonathan Powell here on the residual concerns over the British government's border assurances: https://www.ft.com/content/5654351e-...5-873e61754ec6No hard border
https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36389898.html
well i never................
And FG riding high in the polls.
Now what are SF and their supporters going to moan about for the next few months.
"Rejoice! The prime minister has solved the thorny problem of the Northern Ireland border, concluded the divorce negotiations and now we can move on to the sunny uplands of negotiating future trading relations with the EU.
Or has she? In fact, the problem of the border is not resolved at all but simply left hanging. The language on “full alignment” means different things to different people. A series of contradictory undertakings have been given and a new separate strand of negotiation on Ireland opened in the next stage."
Powell was a governmental negotiator and advisor to Tony Blair when the GFA was agreed, so I'd say he knows a thing or too about constructive ambiguity and how it works.
'UK qualifies implications of ‘full alignment’ Brexit pledge': https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...edge-1.3320823
Was watching Andrew Marr's show on BBC yesterday and he was describing the past week as Theresa May's "best week since she became Prime Minister"...
Why are people and the media fawning over her "negotiation skills"? The deal struck was somewhere between a fudge and a capitulation.
Well they have the EU and therefore us over a barrel. I'm sick to death at this stage. I want them gone.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
This deal will last as long as the mathematics in the House of Commons and no longer. It satisfies nobody.
FG have come out of it smelling of roses. Some change in a week. FF on the other hand are in crisis, whether they realise it or not.
With the polls as they are I'd imagine Leo is considering going to the people in the early Spring. If he wants to be the FG leader who puts the soldiers of destiny to the sword he should wait until SF have McDonald in place. FF will find themselves squeezed between a government seen to be performing well, and SF with a fresh faced leader and an agenda of radical change to appeal to the disillusioned and dispossessed.
On the idea discussed above of the north retaining our MEPs, Id fully expect that to be the case. I've had a pet theory for a while that for the European parliament we will end up as a single all island constituency (the current boundaries make no sense at all anyway) with the number of seats apportioned to us to reflect all those in the island who are entitled to Irish citizenship (everybody).
The DUP will go potty but they don't get any say in the internal affairs of the EU post-Brexit.
Bring Back Belfast Celtic F.C.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks