Brexit - the next steps

[ProfessorDavey]

What is there to debate?

Absolutely everything.

Brexit could mean anything from Norway to pretty well complete isolationism. Surely our sovereign and democratically elected parliament must play a major role in determining which flavour of Brexit we get. And remember parliament is meant to represent all the people, not just the 52% (or much less of the total electorate or population) who voted leave. May seems only to be interested in pandering to a narrow faction of the leave voters (hence one of her own MPs - a Brexiter - resigning yesterday) - that is not right, she must develop a plan for Brexit in the best interests of the whole population.

[Harrowby Hall]

Given that May was a mild remainer, you have to suspect that she see the Brexit bandwagon as a vehicle with which to rout UKIP and Labour.

I have suspected this, too. If so, then she is making exactly the same mistake that her immediate predecessor made: putting party interests before those of the nation. Being a party creature, of course, may mean that she perceives the two interests as being the same.

[Anchorman]

One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement  believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.

[ProfessorDavey]

One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement  believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.

I agree - and I also thought that a Scottish vote for independence would have had the same destabilising effect. It is quite possible that if there were another IndyRef, which was won that the fragile peace process in NI would rapidly unwind as nationalist demand that the only way to protect NI's interests are to leave the UK and join with the Republic.

[Anchorman]

I'm genuinely scared of the situation, Prof. I think Westminster has taken its eyes off the ball where Northern Ireland is concerned; the peace process is still fragile, and the underlying tensions have not gone away. Wheras we Scots simply moan and agitate with all the democratic force we can muster under the law, there are strands of radical republicanism which are itching to take up the struggle. Sinn Fein, like them or loathe them (and I'm not all that comfortable with them) have managed to keep the situation under some control. A Brexit which further distances the province from the republic (in their eyes, if no-one else's) would just be the last straw, I'm afraid.

[floo]

I'm genuinely scared of the situation, Prof. I think Westminster has taken its eyes off the ball where Northern Ireland is concerned; the peace process is still fragile, and the underlying tensions have not gone away. Wheras we Scots simply moan and agitate with all the democratic force we can muster under the law, there are strands of radical republicanism which are itching to take up the struggle. Sinn Fein, like them or loathe them (and I'm not all that comfortable with them) have managed to keep the situation under some control. A Brexit which further distances the province from the republic (in their eyes, if no-one else's) would just be the last straw, I'm afraid.

Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!

[Anchorman]

I'm wholly in favour of a united  Ireland, floo - but the chances of persuading the more radical unionists are zero. And no sane, liberal democratic nation - as the Republic now is - would welcome a section of people who adamantly will not recognise it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!

I'm not sure that the issue is whether you or I think a united Ireland is a good thing. No, it is whether a resurgence of support for pushing for a united Ireland on the nationalist side would lead to a resurgence of violence. I think it would sadly.

At the moment the uneasy peace is held together by a view on the nationalist side to put the notion of fighting for a united Ireland to one side for the moment and to focus on both sides on improving the lives of those living in NI. That precious balance would be destroyed by a resurgence of a strong nationalist agenda.

[floo]

I'm not sure that the issue is whether you or I think a united Ireland is a good thing. No, it is whether a resurgence of support for pushing for a united Ireland on the nationalist side would lead to a resurgence of violence. I think it would sadly.

At the moment the uneasy peace is held together by a view on the nationalist side to put the notion of fighting for a united Ireland to one side for the moment and to focus on both sides on improving the lives of those living in NI. That precious balance would be destroyed by a resurgence of a strong nationalist agenda.

Of course there is no excuse for violence whatsoever, however Ireland should NEVER have been divided in the first place. The British treatment of Ireland is the past has been despicable, to say the very least. I have British/Irish nationality.

[Hope]

Of course there is no excuse for violence whatsoever, however Ireland should NEVER have been divided in the first place. The British treatment of Ireland is the past has been despicable, to say the very least. I have British/Irish nationality.

I believe that many 'British Irish' (for want of a better term) would disagree with you, Floo.  Whilstthe religious divide is often cited as the issue, reality shows that it is only one of a number of issues.

[floo]

I believe that many 'British Irish' (for want of a better term) would disagree with you, Floo.  Whilstthe religious divide is often cited as the issue, reality shows that it is only one of a number of issues.

Ireland was invaded by the Brits who had no business to be there in the first place.

[Anchorman]

That's a rather simplistic view of history, floo. 'Invasion; actually worked both ways" (Have a look at Dalriada, for example) And religion has little to do with the divide nowadays - 'loyalists' use it as a label to stick their perceived grievances on - wheras in actuality, the laws of  the Republic are more liberal than those of NI - for example, on both same sex marriage and abortion.

[Anchorman]

This puts the cat among the pigeons, and might threaten a Tory majority - if true: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-martin-mcguinness-refuses-to-rule-out-sinn-f ein-mps-entering-westminster-to-a7397201.html

[Nearly Sane]

This puts the cat among the pigeons, and might threaten a Tory majority - if true: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-martin-mcguinness-refuses-to-rule-out-sinn-f ein-mps-entering-westminster-to-a7397201.html

There is no chance of the numbers being threatened unless the Labour Party change their position, and even then a quick election would wipe them out

[Jack Knave]

Rubbish - the UK only signed the Lisbon treaty via an Act Parliament, in other words after it had been debated in parliament and had been passed by votes in both the commons and lords and a bill receiving royal assent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7290871.stm

To give some context the bill was passed by 346 to 206 in the commons after 6 weeks of debate.

This thread isn't about that end of the process. The decision to negotiate in the Maastricht/Lisbon treaties were note carried by a vote in the Commons. Neither were the terms of those negotiations voted on in parliament. That is what this is about. Yet now that the Remoaners have lost they what this part of the deal voted on. That is wrong.

[Jack Knave]

Also, Maastricht had to be ratified by Parliament. That was the political soap opera of the day with John Major's government in danger of being undermined by its own back benchers (Ian Duncan-Snake amongst them).

We are not talking about that end of the process, but the beginning of it which was never voted on in parliament.

[Jack Knave]

It's all one huge game.... and we are pawns in the game..

Or a humble SweetPea!

[Jack Knave]

Well it's the only one she'll get .....and the only one Brexiteers will get to give.
At least it will buck the three Los Wankeros up.

There's talk of an early GE. 

[Jack Knave]

The referendum was a vote on a broad principle and intention; what will emerge during negotiations is a more detailed and authentic picture of what that change in future direction will mean in practice.  I don't see a strong case for ending the democratic process because minds will change as new information and insights come to light.  There has to be a mechanism for the will of the people to be expressed when we know the detail and we are more confident in the projections.

If that was the case why was there an official leave group? (Vote leave), if all it was was a broad principle. 

There is a difference between a betrothal and a marriage. A betrothal indicates an intention but it is not binding and the space between betrothal and marriage gives the lovers time to reflect and get to know each other better and hence the opportunity for get-out if it becomes clear their original intention was unwise.  This seems sensible to me

Bad analogy. People voted to leave, there was no indication of a cooling off period. Cameron said he would trigger Art 50 straight away showing that there was no intention of a period of grace.

[Jack Knave]

I would suggest that the triggering of the Article is the 'betrothal' not the referendum.  The latter is simply the people saying we want this move investigated.  Remember that negotiations can't officially start until Article 50 is actually triggered (though I am sure that there have been discussions about negotiations going on since the moment the result became known).

Once Art 50 is triggered we are out in one way or another. The clock is ticking and after two years it is done; unless all sides agree to extend it but that only puts off the inevitable.

[Jack Knave]

One monster which might well rear its' head and make things even worse is the Northern Ireland question. NI voted remain....and now there are pressures on Sinn Fein to join SDLP in Westminster and ask that the devolved governments have a say in the High Court/Supreme Court ruling. I think we ignore the EU's relevence to the peace process at our peril,....because many republicans only bought into the Good Friday agreement  believing they, like their countrymen south of the border, would be part of a single EU. They see a barrier (physical, strategic or political) between them as a return to british rule - and that would be unacceptable to the hotheads, no matter how deluded they are. More to the point, though, Sinn Fein has to be seen to listen to the more radical republicans, or it will lose credibility in the North - with possibly disasterous repercussions for the fragile peace process.

NI did not vote to remain, only the UK voted.

And, yeah, lets given into violence and fear!!!

[Jack Knave]

Maybe NI will decide to join the south and become a united Ireland again, and no bad thing imo!

Or better still the South leaves the EU and solves this infantile situation.

[Sebastian Toe]

If that was the case why was there an official leave group? (Vote leave), if all it was was a broad principle. 
Bad analogy. People voted to leave, there was no indication of a cooling off period. Cameron said he would trigger Art 50 straight away showing that there was no intention of a period of grace.

Cameron said that because he thought he was going to win.
..and he didn't, win or trigger.
LFP....

[Jack Knave]

Ireland was invaded by the Brits who had no business to be there in the first place.

I thought you liked immigration, Floo? Oh I see you're two faced about it depending on the context.

[Jack Knave]

Cameron said that because he thought he was going to win.
..and he didn't, win or trigger.
LFP....

My point wasn't about what he did or did not do but that there was no intention of a cooling off period, else he couldn't have said that.