Crosswords1 min ago
Did The Election Result Kill Hard Brexit?
Both the DUP and the Scottish Conservatives favour a soft Brexit. The DUP want a soft border with the EU member ROI, and Ruth Davidson, a possible contender for May's job, wants a single market.
May's hard brexit stance is at odds with the people she is reliant on to keep her in power. WiLl she now have to soften the Brexit terms to placate her new friends?
Interesting piece on Ruth Davidson here.
http://
May's hard brexit stance is at odds with the people she is reliant on to keep her in power. WiLl she now have to soften the Brexit terms to placate her new friends?
Interesting piece on Ruth Davidson here.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The DUP I think are hard Brexitters, but yes they do want a "soft" border with the ROI, but then I think everyone wants that if possible.
What they DO have a thing about is "no special case for N Ireland", which is bad news. The reason being that they don't want anything to happen which might, in their eyes, push NI closer to the Republic. This, along with the implications for the Stormont deadlock, are the reasons I personally am uneasy about a further more formal arrangement between the Tories and the DUP rather than all the other stuff and nonsense.
But I think hard Brexit ought to be dead, yes. The pre-election May was determined to face down the 48% and the 48% have told her where to go in no uncertain terms. She is now weak. She will have to address concerns that previously she arrogantly disregarded in her seeming push to hoover up deserting UKippers. But many of the latter seem to have voted against her for the very reasons they supprted UKIP: ie not necessarily or simply out of opposition to the EU but as a further revolt against the "established order" and austerity.
If I was Ruth Davidson I'd really be rubbing it in at this moment: she was treated with contempt by the Tory election team during the campaign, but the joke is on them now.
What they DO have a thing about is "no special case for N Ireland", which is bad news. The reason being that they don't want anything to happen which might, in their eyes, push NI closer to the Republic. This, along with the implications for the Stormont deadlock, are the reasons I personally am uneasy about a further more formal arrangement between the Tories and the DUP rather than all the other stuff and nonsense.
But I think hard Brexit ought to be dead, yes. The pre-election May was determined to face down the 48% and the 48% have told her where to go in no uncertain terms. She is now weak. She will have to address concerns that previously she arrogantly disregarded in her seeming push to hoover up deserting UKippers. But many of the latter seem to have voted against her for the very reasons they supprted UKIP: ie not necessarily or simply out of opposition to the EU but as a further revolt against the "established order" and austerity.
If I was Ruth Davidson I'd really be rubbing it in at this moment: she was treated with contempt by the Tory election team during the campaign, but the joke is on them now.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
There seems to be an assumption among some that the EU would not want us to have a so-called "hard brexit" whatever that may mean fully. I think it's rather the case that the EU just want us to get a move on and negotiate something. So with respect I don't think "no compromise" means anything. Both sides will compromise: it is the way of negotiations. It's what each side gives that matters, but that only has a meaning in the context of what is actually on offer or what is being demanded. I don't think it is the case that the UK goes in and says "We're just leaving, and we'll trade with you on that basis"
That is not how it will be.
The DUP actually have said that they don;'t agree with "no deal better than bad deal". They presumably would fight hard to try to keep EU farm subsidies. In fact given that, and given their concerns over the border, combined with the obvious concerns that Brexit could lead many to favour closer ties with the republic, I don't really understand why they favour Brexit at all. But then I have never fathomed a lot of what the DUP think.
That is not how it will be.
The DUP actually have said that they don;'t agree with "no deal better than bad deal". They presumably would fight hard to try to keep EU farm subsidies. In fact given that, and given their concerns over the border, combined with the obvious concerns that Brexit could lead many to favour closer ties with the republic, I don't really understand why they favour Brexit at all. But then I have never fathomed a lot of what the DUP think.
No reason why it should unless all involved convince themselves it should.
The referendum was to exit, not to claim we have exited, mark the paperwork to show we have exited, but agree to continue with the very impositions that made us determined to leave in the first place. (Then tell everyone they said Brexit was a bad idea when in reality it was bending over backwards to accept unreasonable EU demands in order to get an arrangement, that would be beneficial for both without oppressive impositions/demands, that screwed everything up.) That is still the case.
I think the so called "Hard Brexit" label isn't helpful. The exit is simply the exit. There are no exit fees or garbage like that. If there are existing obligations then the EU need to provide evidence. The negotiations are for the agreements to be in place afterwards, so not strictly part of the exit.
As I understand it "Hard" means taking no crepe from the EU and their desire to be punitive in order to stop others leaving. Not capitulating to unreasonable demands in order to get a win/win trade deal, as some parties and individuals seem keen to make known that they would, because they have no backbone.
The referendum was to exit, not to claim we have exited, mark the paperwork to show we have exited, but agree to continue with the very impositions that made us determined to leave in the first place. (Then tell everyone they said Brexit was a bad idea when in reality it was bending over backwards to accept unreasonable EU demands in order to get an arrangement, that would be beneficial for both without oppressive impositions/demands, that screwed everything up.) That is still the case.
I think the so called "Hard Brexit" label isn't helpful. The exit is simply the exit. There are no exit fees or garbage like that. If there are existing obligations then the EU need to provide evidence. The negotiations are for the agreements to be in place afterwards, so not strictly part of the exit.
As I understand it "Hard" means taking no crepe from the EU and their desire to be punitive in order to stop others leaving. Not capitulating to unreasonable demands in order to get a win/win trade deal, as some parties and individuals seem keen to make known that they would, because they have no backbone.
Why wouldn't they simply ask Westminster to cover the subsidies from the money saved ? As for the border, since that is an agreement between the UK and Eire and nothing to do with the EU one can't see why there needs to be any major change there, nor desire to unite with the south. Not that the border won't be monitored. Don't need EU illegal immigrants sneaking across.
-- answer removed --
//Did folk not note they they sell more to us than we do to them ? Or was that forgotten ?//
It's not really an honest reflection of reality. Our exports to the EU are more than the EU's exports to us, but represent 40%+ of our overall trade.
Meanwhile the EU's exports to the UK are about 5%. Even Germany - probably the highest case - exports something like 10% to us. Having that level of trade suddenly become more difficult would be a survivable inconvenience for them, and absolutely ruinous for us.
So it wasn't forgotten, it's just more Brexiteer spin.
It's not really an honest reflection of reality. Our exports to the EU are more than the EU's exports to us, but represent 40%+ of our overall trade.
Meanwhile the EU's exports to the UK are about 5%. Even Germany - probably the highest case - exports something like 10% to us. Having that level of trade suddenly become more difficult would be a survivable inconvenience for them, and absolutely ruinous for us.
So it wasn't forgotten, it's just more Brexiteer spin.
"Why wouldn't they simply ask Westminster to cover the subsidies from the money saved ?"
Well, they might.
"As for the border, since that is an agreement between the UK and Eire and nothing to do with the EU one can't see why there needs to be any major change there, nor desire to unite with the south."
The DUP say they want to exit the customs union. Not many people want to go back to the days of border customs posts. The great irony is that the staunchly loyalist DUP want to be sure the border remains with as few restrictions as possible. As I said before, you wonder why they support Brexit at all.
"Not that the border won't be monitored. Don't need EU illegal immigrants sneaking across. "
Good luck with that one. The border is impossible to police in that way.
Well, they might.
"As for the border, since that is an agreement between the UK and Eire and nothing to do with the EU one can't see why there needs to be any major change there, nor desire to unite with the south."
The DUP say they want to exit the customs union. Not many people want to go back to the days of border customs posts. The great irony is that the staunchly loyalist DUP want to be sure the border remains with as few restrictions as possible. As I said before, you wonder why they support Brexit at all.
"Not that the border won't be monitored. Don't need EU illegal immigrants sneaking across. "
Good luck with that one. The border is impossible to police in that way.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.