UK EU Referendum Aftermath
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atoning for colonialism bandito bangs fists on table blunderbuss brexit means ....? brexit means breakfast brother vim bummed to death chickpeas continental craner watch daddy what is france? disgraced yoga instructor don't panic feeding my dog yoghurt full english guru dominic houmus hummus inventing reasons to hate people keep your hair on luka's national pride musket no muslims in wetherspoons oddly enough nuthouse penis sex political suicide cults project fear ii - acute anxiety really fucking shit up riot season silverware and plate clattering smashed him at backgammon stockpiling sushi the crane devours his prey the feelings of racist idiots the wrong kind of labour voters tribbles turkish breakfast walk among the swine wazza where are my chickpeas now? white men screaming racist at each other who dare speak of other things? yorkshire puds loaded into a gun
comelately
Wild Horses
Basically the Good Friday Agreement is dead, and peace was entirely predicated on that agreement.
The power of the GFA is its vagueness, but it's also become the problem. If you look at what it says in the text, there is very little that is specific with regards to there being border infrastructure. Of course, interpretation of legal texts are rarely strictly constructionist and to the Irish the removal of Northern Ireland from the Customs Union drives a cart and horses through the agreement.
Boris' proposal involves NI staying in the SM (though not the CU), but only if there is (ongoing) consent in Stormont (the NI Parliament that hasn't sat for 1000 days). Stormont, theoretically, has 90 members and Unionists don't necessarily have a majority. But via a 'Petition of Concern' mechanism, 30 Unionist members can effectively withhold consent (Republicans have also used it, but DUP have used it a lot). So essentially, it would give the DUP power over the Republic - which....they're unlikely to be very keen on, for a variety of reasons. It's taking the piss basically.
Unionists will say, not without justification, that the Petition of Concern mechanism is as much part of the GFA as anything else.
Basically Brexit isn't compatible with the GFA. The backstop was an attempt to square that circle.
The power of the GFA is its vagueness, but it's also become the problem. If you look at what it says in the text, there is very little that is specific with regards to there being border infrastructure. Of course, interpretation of legal texts are rarely strictly constructionist and to the Irish the removal of Northern Ireland from the Customs Union drives a cart and horses through the agreement.
Boris' proposal involves NI staying in the SM (though not the CU), but only if there is (ongoing) consent in Stormont (the NI Parliament that hasn't sat for 1000 days). Stormont, theoretically, has 90 members and Unionists don't necessarily have a majority. But via a 'Petition of Concern' mechanism, 30 Unionist members can effectively withhold consent (Republicans have also used it, but DUP have used it a lot). So essentially, it would give the DUP power over the Republic - which....they're unlikely to be very keen on, for a variety of reasons. It's taking the piss basically.
Unionists will say, not without justification, that the Petition of Concern mechanism is as much part of the GFA as anything else.
Basically Brexit isn't compatible with the GFA. The backstop was an attempt to square that circle.
comelately
Wild Horses
You sound just like Boris Johnson!
Let me try again. RoI only gave up their claim on Northern Ireland as part of the GFA. To many, it is occupied territory. But, the GFA allowed Republicans (and anyone else fwiw) to consider themselves Irish and essentially operate as if Ireland was one country. You take that away and you take away the foundation the peace was built on.
Let me try again. RoI only gave up their claim on Northern Ireland as part of the GFA. To many, it is occupied territory. But, the GFA allowed Republicans (and anyone else fwiw) to consider themselves Irish and essentially operate as if Ireland was one country. You take that away and you take away the foundation the peace was built on.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
They shot a reporter dead back in April!
(I don't think it was an official IRA action - the old phrase "dissident republicans" was dusted off.)
comelately
Wild Horses
I'm not sure what has been said tbh. The ugly truth is that Irish Republican Paramilitaries have not been beyond killing people anyway.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well clearly not, if everyone was as rational and level-headed as you. :slanted:
It's going to harm the economy of NI though, for sure (even above and beyond the general malaise that's going to affect the whole of the UK), as well as the RoI. Recessions invariably inflame sectarian conflicts. There'll be large numbers of bored, angry, unemployed young men. A hard border will massively raise the stakes involved in drug-running, and there's a big connection between street gangs and the sectarian paramilitaries (more risks involved in running drugs --> higher street prices --> more money for gangs --> more money to buy guns with). Seems pretty inevitable to me.
Edit: and that's before you go into the explicitly political implications for the GFA that comelately has already explained.
Last edited:
comelately
Wild Horses
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
As a lover of puns, I have to grudgingly admit that that's pretty good.
It's impossible to overstate the importance of a snappy, simple slogan or catchphrase. I sometimes wonder if Leave would have won the vote even without Cambridge Analytica, lies about Turkey and all the rest, purely on the strength of Cummings's "Let's Take Back Control". Brutally simple. Direct. Emotive. Implies that we are currently *not* 'in control', whatever that means. Invites anyone who disagrees to explain who, if not 'we', should be in control, and why. "Make America Great Again" is another. What sort of American would want their country to be *not* great - small, poor, meek, cowardly, whatever the opposite of 'great' is?
Corbyn's "For the many, not for the few" is pretty good too, although even seven words might be a bit too long.
It's impossible to overstate the importance of a snappy, simple slogan or catchphrase. I sometimes wonder if Leave would have won the vote even without Cambridge Analytica, lies about Turkey and all the rest, purely on the strength of Cummings's "Let's Take Back Control". Brutally simple. Direct. Emotive. Implies that we are currently *not* 'in control', whatever that means. Invites anyone who disagrees to explain who, if not 'we', should be in control, and why. "Make America Great Again" is another. What sort of American would want their country to be *not* great - small, poor, meek, cowardly, whatever the opposite of 'great' is?
Corbyn's "For the many, not for the few" is pretty good too, although even seven words might be a bit too long.
comelately
Wild Horses
Well "For the many, not for the few" proved open to punning as well.
Leo
Well-known member
the right in the US have often been far better in their messaging. part of it comes from their discipline: their think tank consultants do the focus groups to see what resonates with voters, then develop talking points which are repeated by politicians, Fox News, brietbart, etc. the old saying that democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line. everyone in the GOP is on the same page hammering home a key message while the big-tent dems are off in 10 directions and ineffective in articulating and reinforcing a single clear narrative.
while it's a bit off to call life-long democratic supporter trump part of the right, he is an evil genius in being able to identify and zero in on an issue and exploit it with a simple catch phrase that says it all (as bullies are known to do). crooked hillary. lock her up. make America great again. the failing New York times. drain the swamp. build the wall. low-energy Jeb (bush). doesn't matter if it's true or not.
like a great advertising tag line, it's simple, captures the essence of the matter and is easy for anyone to understand. and there's often a grain of truth to it. even hillary supporters admit to the Clinton's sleazy past.
while it's a bit off to call life-long democratic supporter trump part of the right, he is an evil genius in being able to identify and zero in on an issue and exploit it with a simple catch phrase that says it all (as bullies are known to do). crooked hillary. lock her up. make America great again. the failing New York times. drain the swamp. build the wall. low-energy Jeb (bush). doesn't matter if it's true or not.
like a great advertising tag line, it's simple, captures the essence of the matter and is easy for anyone to understand. and there's often a grain of truth to it. even hillary supporters admit to the Clinton's sleazy past.
Last edited:
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Re: the superior advertising of the Right - Perhaps the Left are hampered by 1) their faith in humanity 2) their faith in nuance?
The Right view the masses as idiots who can be hypnotised by simple slogans. Not saying the masses are idiots, but they (that is, we) can be easily manipulated.
The Left know this too, I suppose, but they're less inclined to 'play dirty'.
The Right view the masses as idiots who can be hypnotised by simple slogans. Not saying the masses are idiots, but they (that is, we) can be easily manipulated.
The Left know this too, I suppose, but they're less inclined to 'play dirty'.
Corpsey
bandz ahoy
Yeah that did flicker across my frontal lobes as I wrote it.
Maybe it's a case of having the right slogan/story for the right time. People were ready for a change after Bush. A BIG change. (This probably helped Trump, too.)
And of course, the right has been helping it's stories out by manipulating people online for years.
Maybe it's a case of having the right slogan/story for the right time. People were ready for a change after Bush. A BIG change. (This probably helped Trump, too.)
And of course, the right has been helping it's stories out by manipulating people online for years.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I do think it's basically true. Lately at least. My big feeling is that over the last few (ten, fifteen?) years the right has shown an increasing willingness to fight dirty. To break rules, stretch conventions etc I'm pretty sure that this is not just my bias, I really think that this is happening. For example last year when the outgoing governor tried to pass laws to weaken the office and prevent his democrat successor from doing what he wanted. Now, I'm fairly sure that a) this wouldn't happen in the past and b) it wouldn't be done by anyone on the left. Anyway, part of this is this this super successful, but crude and often utterly dishonest sloganeering. The left doesn't do it to the same extent and is basically fighting with one hand behind its back.