Our future with the EU: The negotiations can now start

[AM9]

Or maybe not yet!

Looks like the EU would be amenable to a delay in Article 50 talks. I suspect that they don't want to negotiate with a government in disarray that can't claim genuine support of the majority of the electorate. I doubt that they will demand completion within the stipulated 2-year period. Even if May is replaced with an extremist leaver, his/her hands will be tied by their precarious voting majority and the new confidence that the more moderate Tories will have to challenge May's strategy of only talking for the 52% of those who actually voted in the referendum.

A bit more like a 'Norway' for the UK then?

 

[Dave1987]

Or maybe not yet!

Looks like the EU would be amenable to a delay in Article 50 talks. I suspect that they don't want to negotiate with a government in disarray that can't claim genuine support of the majority of the electorate. I doubt that they will demand completion within the stipulated 2-year period. Even if May is replaced with an extremist leaver, his/her hands will be tied by their precarious voting majority and the new confidence that the more moderate Tories will have to challenge May's strategy of only talking for the 52% of those who actually voted in the referendum.

A bit more like a 'Norway' for the UK then?

She is an extremist leaver now! Remember "no deal is better than a bad deal" and all that rubbish.

 

[Howardh]

Hands are tied by the next General Election, September, October, November? Seeing as General Elections trump advisory referendums, any government now has the right to scrap Brexit if they wish. All perfectly democratic, which is what Brexiters demanded.

 

[najaB]

BBC are saying that we may have a government:

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg says Theresa May is expected to head to Buckingham Palace today to speak to the Queen, "with the understanding she can form a government".

This is a result of conversations that have been taking place with the DUP over the past hours, though it is "not necessarily an attempt to form a formal coalition.

"The DUP have no wish to see Theresa May out of office and no wish to work with Jeremy Corbyn," added Laura.

 

[me123]

Sounds like a minority administration with informal support from the DUP. So much for strong and stable. Her position is in jeopardy, although it seems not immediately.

 

[furnessvale]

She is an extremist leaver now! Remember "no deal is better than a bad deal" and all that rubbish.

Rubbish? By definition ANY deal that is better than no deal cannot be a bad deal.

On the other hand ANY deal that is worse than not having a deal MUST be bad.

 

[northwichcat]

Rubbish? By definition ANY deal that is better than no deal cannot be a bad deal.

On the other hand ANY deal that is worse than not having a deal MUST be bad.

A good deal won't be offered on a plate by the EU - it will take a lot of hard negotiation. May suggesting she will walk away with no deal suggests she'll walk away if negotiations get difficult.

 

[Howardh]

Telegraph business section is discussing (revisiting) what a Norway model would look like; EFTA/EEU so full access but paying for the privilege, no votes and allowing almost full FoM.

Sounds to me that the best option would be to say to the EU, "look guys, we need you, you need us, the whole thing was a bit of a shock to everyone, now can we just forget it all happened and move back in, and scrap the divorce thing?"

 

[northwichcat]

Telegraph business section is discussing (revisiting) what a Norway model would look like; EFTA/EEU so full access but paying for the privilege, no votes and allowing almost full FoM.

Sounds to me that the best option would be to say to the EU, "look guys, we need you, you need us, the whole thing was a bit of a shock to everyone, now can we just forget it all happened and move back in, and scrap the divorce thing?"

I agree the Norway model isn't a good one. Norway doesn't get to vote on the terms but currently we do. So politicians elected by us are telling Norway what they can and can't do and yet UKIP claim were the ones being forced in to things we don't want by the EU.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sounds like a minority administration with informal support from the DUP. So much for strong and stable.

The DUP do not want any agreement where Northern Ireland is treated differently to the rest of the UK. The DUP have made it pretty clear that if this involves putting a hard border and all the checkpoints back then this is what they will do. The DUP see keeping Ulster unionist as more important than anything else.

The DUP are propped up by a proscribed terrorist organisation, the DUP leader met the UDA leader days after the UDA had just shot someone in front of his 3-year-old son in an internal dispute, and the UDA had actively campaigned for the DUP in Belfast.

Meanwhile, Sinn Fein are almost as strong as the DUP in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that Ulster has always been a gerrymandered state, and Sinn Fein will accept nothing other than the status quo with the Irish border.

It's an absolute shambles.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Meanwhile, Sinn Fein are almost as strong as the DUP in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that Ulster has always been a gerrymandered state, and Sinn Fein will accept nothing other than the status quo with the Irish border.

It's an absolute shambles.

What is the use of Sinn Fein being almost as strong as the DUP if they keep to their stance of not taking up their seats in the House of Commons..:roll:

 

[AM9]

What is the use of Sinn Fein being almost as strong as the DUP if they keep to their stance of not taking up their seats in the House of Commons..:roll:

But they can turn up whenever they see fit if it is worth the trouble.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't claim to be an expert on NI politics but I'd have thought it was in the DUP's interest to favour a softer Brexit. The harder version combined with a focus on controlling the border and immigration inevitably leads to either a hard border within Ireland (which I can't imagine many people want and the party creating it would probably get the blame) or the imposition of equivalent controls between NI and GB (potentially a step towards a united Ireland).

 

[me123]

Their vision will be a softer withdrawal from the EU, undoubtedly. No-one in NI wants a border, so actually the DUP's involvement in the negotiations could very well soften the blow to a degree. Just not as much as many would have hoped for.

 

[ainsworth74]

Please use the existing Results and Aftermath thread for discussing the outcome of the election itself.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can't claim to be an expert on NI politics but I'd have thought it was in the DUP's interest to favour a softer Brexit.

Interesting, the DUP spent £282,000 on the day before the Referendum last year on a four-page wraparound spread in Metro. Campaiging for a Leave vote. By comparison, they only spent £90,000 on their own election campaign for the Assembly elections.

This raises several questions. Metro does not circulate in Northern Ireland. £282,000 is a staggering amount of money. So who gave them the money? And why?

The DUP won't say.

To recap briefly: two days before the Brexit referendum last June, the Metro freesheet in London and other British cities came wrapped in a four-page glossy propaganda supplement urging readers to vote Leave. Bizarrely, it was paid for by the DUP, even though Metro does not circulate in Northern Ireland. At the time, the DUP refused to say what the ads cost or where the money came from.

We’ve since learned that the Metro wraparound cost a staggering £282,000 (€330,000) – surely the biggest single campaign expense in the history of Irish politics. For context, the DUP had spent about £90,000 (€106,000) on its entire campaign for the previous month’s assembly elections. But this was not all: the DUP eventually admitted that this spending came from a much larger donation of £425,622 (€530,000) from a mysterious organisation, the Constitutional Research Council.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...k-money-and-a-saudi-prince-1.3083586?mode=amp

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

But they can turn up whenever they see fit if it is worth the trouble.

Not quite. The reason SF don't take their seats is because on first attendance in the House all MPs are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, something that is utterly contrary to SF's basic principles. So you will never see a SF MP actually in the House though they can still claim their allowances and have offices there.

 

[AM9]

Not quite. The reason SF don't take their seats is because on first attendance in the House all MPs are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, something that is utterly contrary to SF's basic principles. So you will never see a SF MP actually in the House though they can still claim their allowances and have offices there.

Hence my comment: "if it is worth the trouble". Martin McGuinness met the queen, shook hanmds with her, and spent a few years as a good friend of Ian Paisley, things change!
Never say never.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Hence my comment: "if it is worth the trouble". Martin McGuinness met the queen, shook hanmds with her, and spent a few years as a good friend of Ian Paisley, things change!
Never say never.

True enough. But the handshake was, in political terms, a concession by HMQ and took place in NI, the very territory disputed by SF. Very different to SF making a concession the other way in the House on what they see as foreign soil.

As to the actual thread topic I wonder how many realise that technically having had a general election the incoming government is perfectly at liberty to ignore last year's referendum? Of course that won't happen but there is an argument that says the referendum result needs to be re-validated, especially as both the Conservatives and UKIP did so badly. And much of the ongoing argument could be resolved by asking the electorate what type of Brexit it really wants, an expression of will which was denied us by Cameron's moronically over-simple referendum question. In other words let's have another referendum to clarify whether people want to stay in the single market and accept the freedom of movement that entails or whether we want absolute separation and have to trust our politicians to come up with replacement trade deals, or not as the case may be. Given that another general election may very well be necessary in a matter of months how about running both polls on the same day!

 

[AlterEgo]

Not quite. The reason SF don't take their seats is because on first attendance in the House all MPs are required to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, something that is utterly contrary to SF's basic principles. So you will never see a SF MP actually in the House though they can still claim their allowances and have offices there.

The Crown oath is a red herring which reduces explanations on abstentionism to something quite trivial. Even if the oath were removed it's unlikely that SF would take their seats. Abstentionism isn't a principle in and of itself but a gesture denoting a principle - that of Irish self determination, and the rejection of British authority over Ireland.

Sinn Féin are an Irish political party concerned about Ireland and not interested whatsoever in governing the whole of the UK at Westminster, oath or no oath.

The other Irish nationalist party, the SDLP, did sit in Westminster (and took the oath despite having no feelings for the Crown!) - and has finally been totally annihilated, by Sinn Féin.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But they can turn up whenever they see fit if it is worth the trouble.

To borrow a phrase made famous by the Rev, Ian Paisley, which actually sums up the stance so well and often stated by Sinn Fein leaders, the answer to your aspirational posting above is "Never, never, never, never"...:roll:

 

[me123]

Allegedly, Article 50 can be rescinded according to columnist Ian Birrell.

This could be an interesting option - hold back on withdrawal from the EU in this time of chaos. I doubt TM will opt for this, and if she did the backlash would be extraordinary. But part of me thinks it could actually be a sensible option to temporarily halt the process on the background of the self-inflicted chaos brought to us by the "strong and stable" Conservative party.

Conservative MP John Redwood has tweeted that there should (will?) be no delay.

 

[Busaholic]

The Crown oath is a red herring which reduces explanations on abstentionism to something quite trivial. Even if the oath were removed it's unlikely that SF would take their seats. Abstentionism isn't a principle in and of itself but a gesture denoting a principle - that of Irish self determination, and the rejection of British authority over Ireland.

Sinn Féin are an Irish political party concerned about Ireland and not interested whatsoever in governing the whole of the UK at Westminster, oath or no oath.

The other Irish nationalist party, the SDLP, did sit in Westminster (and took the oath despite having no feelings for the Crown!) - and has finally been totally annihilated, by Sinn Féin.

Tony Benn, of whom I was no fan, explained his Oath of Allegiance by saying he had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time. Given the reasons for the supposed supremacy of Parliament, and specifically the House of Commons, there really should not be such an Oath, but it's as likely to go as is the City of London Corporation. Democracy does not rule!

 

[furnessvale]

Tony Benn, of whom I was no fan, explained his Oath of Allegiance by saying he had his fingers crossed behind his back at the time. Given the reasons for the supposed supremacy of Parliament, and specifically the House of Commons, there really should not be such an Oath, but it's as likely to go as is the City of London Corporation. Democracy does not rule!

Perhaps an oath to the queen may offend some, although I am a monarchist, but I see no reason why an oath of loyalty to our country should not be applicable.

As well as getting rid of Sinn Fein, that would have the additional benefit of getting rid of SNP and probably Plaid Cymru as well! Result!

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps an oath to the queen may offend some, although I am a monarchist, but I see no reason why an oath of loyalty to our country should not be applicable.

As well as getting rid of Sinn Fein, that would have the additional benefit of getting rid of SNP and probably Plaid Cymru as well! Result!

Perhaps it would be wiser to think about why people elect MPs standing for separatist parties. The UK has two serious separatist movements which doesn't really fit with the preferred narrative of strong and stable union.

 

[Dave1987]

I think that May will be very reluctant to start the Brexit negotiations. All the language of being "a bloody difficult woman" blah blah blah may well come back to bite her in the negotiations. She is very much weakened, only the Daily Express believes she will last very long as PM and they are as bad as the Daily Fail. Unless she goes into the negotiations very much humbled by the election she isn't going to get the deal she needs to save her career.