I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
Convincing the Irish that the British are sincere about trying to protect their interests is not something that could be realistically tackled by a Tory government, still less one propped up by the DUP.
The DUP were once implacably opposed to SF, for decades on end. Yet, eventually, Ian Paisley Sr. was happy to share power with Martin McGuiness.
Certainly but that does not mean that 800 years of suspicion and mistrust have evaporated. And Brexiteer comments disparaging the Good Friday Agreement are hardly likely to encourage the Irish to take British promises at face value.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it has placed Ireland in a stronger position diplomatically than the UK, and a British PM is forced to go cap in hand to the EU to seek changes to a backstop which the Irish are seeking to impose on the British. In the past the boot has very much been on the other foot.
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods. Of course there other advantages to the rUK staying in the Single Market (cross Channel trade). Alternatively, most people in Northern Ireland would welcome an FTZ for their territory, including many unionists. It would be nice if there were at least one winner from Brexit amongst all the losers.
Chicken and egg. The Tories needed to promise a referendum to halt the otherwise unstoppable rise of Ukip, and Ukip were popular because they were promising a referendum first.
It's impossible to prove either way, but Ukip did pretty well in the '09 EU elections and then did pretty dismally in the GE the following year. I remember that being followed by a sigh of relief from the main parties that the danger had passed, and people were prepared to register protest votes when it didn't matter, and revert to the main parties when it did. Later years disproved that thesis.
Conclusion: no one cares about Euro elections and it was Ukip's performances in locals and general election polling that forced Cameron to offer a commitment to a referendum.
But that circles back to my original premise. UKIP doing well is part of what got Cameron to pledge the referendum. However UKIP would never have been taken so seriously had they not consistently built up following ever-better electoral results under PR. PR and the European Parliament gave Farage a platform from which to be taken seriously.
Apparently the Opinium figures excluding TIG are Con 40 Lab 34 LD 9. Counterintuitively the implication is that TIG is now hitting the Tories and the LibDems more than Labour!
Not counter intuitive to me, I'd expect that TIG would be fishing in the same pool as the Lib Dems so would hit them most. And the actual evidence (as opposed to hysteria) is that the existance of the SDP restricted Thatcher's majority in 83.
Sane people who know that Labour under Corbyn can't be voted for have a home to go to now other than the Tories and Lib Dems.
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods.
Precisely. That's why even suggesting that a technical solution might be possible is seen as evidence of bad faith, or at least of not understanding the issues. The UK has committed in domestic law not to implement Brexit in a way that would require any new checks on the Irish border so if we reject the political means necessary to give effect to that commitment, it puts our sincerity in question.
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods. Of course there other advantages to the rUK staying in the Single Market (cross Channel trade). Alternatively, most people in Northern Ireland would welcome an FTZ for their territory, including many unionists. It would be nice if there were at least one winner from Brexit amongst all the losers.
That's what it is, really.
Yes, clearly technical issues cannot resolve leaving a common set of standards. An FTA is not enough. Either that or NI becomes semi detached.
All kinds of assertion on here as usual - surely it's much easier to look at WHAT OFCOM HAS ACTUALLY SAID.
So here goes, PER OFCOM:
"we place greater weight on the actual performance of a political party in elections over opinion poll data...………….
whilst putting less weight on levels of current support as opposed to actual performance, we put weight on evidence of current support that is objective and measurable. One type of objective and measurable evidence of current support is opinion poll data, where it is available...…"
So IF, say, TIG consistently polled 25% in polls then OFCOM absolutely would take account of that info even without any historical electoral record.
But they'll take a rounded view - ie not just one poll, not just one month - but a high poll rating consistently sustained over several months up to a GE absolutely would be reflected.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
It won't do, the Commons voted by 502 to 20 votes last week to enable an extension, however I suppose it may be possible that the above scenario could happen if the EU demands EUref2 as the price of an extension but in that scenario I think the Deal would scrape home otherwise we would likely have that EUref2
About 20 ie the same 20 who voted against extension of Article 50 last week but the rest of the ERG plus some Labour MPs from Leave seats would be enough to pass the Deal
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods.
Precisely. That's why even suggesting that a technical solution might be possible is seen as evidence of bad faith, or at least of not understanding the issues. The UK has committed in domestic law not to implement Brexit in a way that would require any new checks on the Irish border so if we reject the political means necessary to give effect to that commitment, it puts our sincerity in question.
Exactly so. That's why the Irish are so hard-line the backstop. They really cannot afford a hard border to the north, they don't see why they should leave the single market to match s diverging UK, and they don't trust UK intentions, not least because various ministers have made it clear they are not committed.
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
...Why do you assume Irish Americans are anything like the Irish?
Sure, it's possible that these views are unique to Irish Americans.
After all, it's easier to discard inconvenient information than to deal with it.
My friends, by the way, were not opposed to "technical solution" of checks away from the border. That was seen as the simplest option.
What they didn't want was a situation where the UK refused to implement any kind of technology for three years, and then put a genuine hard border in place, with passport checks and customs posts.
This is really, really important. We don't want the backstop, because we don't want the EU messing around, and not implementing a technical solution, therefore tying us in indefinitely. The (American) Irish I spoke to said a backstop was essential, because otherwise the British would never bother implementing a technical solution.
The solution is for us to focus rather more of our energies on the solution, and less on the backstop. This is hardly an impossible challenge. Sadly, it seems about 100 times the intellectual horsepower is being wasted on arguing about the backstop.
In the UK, the assumption is that we are sincere, and the Irish/EU are not. In Dublin, the assumption is that Ireland is sincere, and the British/DUP are not.
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
...Why do you assume Irish Americans are anything like the Irish?
Sure, it's possible that these views are unique to Irish Americans.
After all, it's easier to discard inconvenient information than to deal with it.
It's a bit of a leap, an extrapolation too far. Simply having Irish ancestry doesn't mean you necessarily share the same views as a modern Irish citizen. Irish Americans are notorious for being considerably more "nationalistic" than their brethren, not unusual in immigrant communities, and many have no personal experience of The Troubles, etc. I wouldn't expect any of the British diaspora to share the same attitudes as current inhabitants of these islands.
Perhaps I'm strange but I think it's better to let the Irish speak for the Irish.
My friends, by the way, were not opposed to "technical solution" of checks away from the border. That was seen as the simplest option.
The solution is for us to focus rather more of our energies on the solution, and less on the backstop. This is hardly an impossible challenge. Sadly, it seems about 100 times the intellectual horsepower is being wasted on arguing about the backstop.
The question is what to do we plan to do that would require checks? The EU Withdrawal Act says that it cannot be used to authorise "checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day". The way to deliver that is to commit to maintain alignment so that checks are not necessary. The reason the backstop gets so much attention is that it is the basis of the solution, and will be indefinitely, even once we move to a new UK-wide future relationship.
Sure, it's possible that these views are unique to Irish Americans.
After all, it's easier to discard inconvenient information than to deal with it.
It's a bit of a leap, an extrapolation too far, and marginally offensive. Simply having Irish ancestry doesn't mean you necessarily share the same views as a modern Irish citizen. Irish Americans are notorious for being considerably more "nationalistic" than their brethren, not unusual in immigrant communities. I wouldn't expect any of the British diaspora to share the same attitudes as current inhabitants of these islands.
Perhaps I'm strange but I think it's better to let the Irish speak for the Irish.
Well, one of the friends only turned up here in his 20s.
But I think you're looking at this the wrong way. If you want to change someone's mind - in this case, to make them think they don't need the backstop, then you have to understand what concern the backstop "fixes" and then look to solve that.
And our concern is that Ireland and the EU are not sincere in their desire to look for a technological solution. Their concern is that the UK is not sincere.
The solution, which solves both these issues, is an independent commission of trade experts from outside of Europe that adjudges whether the parties are keeping to their treaty commitments of working to a solution. If they judge that the Irish/EU are stalling in implementaton, then we can walk away. If they judge that the UK is failing to work towards a technical solution, then we agree not to unilaterally break the backstop.
Regularly external progress reports would be good for all concerned.
But the ERG's terms require the EU to make legally binding changes to the backstop. Which the EU has said it will not do.
Well, quite. While May has made things quite a bit worse in all this in a number of ways, both the ERG and the EU even have at times expressed anger at her for not delivering things which are not within her gift (not helped by her flop flopping on trying some of them in fairness). A test which is designed to fail is not really a test.
But the ERG's terms require the EU to make legally binding changes to the backstop. Which the EU has said it will not do.
Well, quite. While May has made things quite a bit worse in all this in a number of ways, both the ERG and the EU even have at times expressed anger at her for not delivering things which are not within her gift (not helped by her flop flopping on trying some of them in fairness). A test which is designed to fail is not really a test.
This looks like a spin exercise by the ERG, pretending to be willing to compromise whilst asking for something that they know is not achievable.
Chicken and egg. The Tories needed to promise a referendum to halt the otherwise unstoppable rise of Ukip, and Ukip were popular because they were promising a referendum first.
It's impossible to prove either way, but Ukip did pretty well in the '09 EU elections and then did pretty dismally in the GE the following year. I remember that being followed by a sigh of relief from the main parties that the danger had passed, and people were prepared to register protest votes when it didn't matter, and revert to the main parties when it did. Later years disproved that thesis.
Conclusion: no one cares about Euro elections and it was Ukip's performances in locals and general election polling that forced Cameron to offer a commitment to a referendum.
But that circles back to my original premise. UKIP doing well is part of what got Cameron to pledge the referendum. However UKIP would never have been taken so seriously had they not consistently built up following ever-better electoral results under PR. PR and the European Parliament gave Farage a platform from which to be taken seriously.
True, except you can't prove that UKIP only got those votes due to the system being PR.
You have the general principle that people are more inclined to vote for "smaller" parties under PR due to less chance of a wasted vote, except that doesn't apply here because a) UKIP were doing so well in the polls that may not have mattered and b) it's well established that no one cares about the EU elections anyway.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
Given the willingness of some to suffer any consequences for a particular outcome and seeing the living with the other option being more difficult, I would think Die free or live hard would make more sense in this context.
But the ERG's terms require the EU to make legally binding changes to the backstop. Which the EU has said it will not do.
Well, quite. While May has made things quite a bit worse in all this in a number of ways, both the ERG and the EU even have at times expressed anger at her for not delivering things which are not within her gift (not helped by her flop flopping on trying some of them in fairness). A test which is designed to fail is not really a test.
This looks like a spin exercise by the ERG, pretending to be willing to compromise whilst asking for something that they know is not achievable.
Or cover, in case their gambit fails and they need a way to back down whilst saving face.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
Did your Irish American friends have any views on the Irish government hardening the border by converting from mph to kmph ?
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods. Of course there other advantages to the rUK staying in the Single Market (cross Channel trade). Alternatively, most people in Northern Ireland would welcome an FTZ for their territory, including many unionists. It would be nice if there were at least one winner from Brexit amongst all the losers.
That's what it is, really.
So why did the Irish government diverge from Northern Ireland by converting from mph to kmph ?
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
Surely ''''Consider that a divorce!" would be most appropriate if it passes
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"?
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
Surely ''''Consider that a divorce!" would be most appropriate if it passes
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"?
But the ERG's terms require the EU to make legally binding changes to the backstop. Which the EU has said it will not do.
Well, quite. While May has made things quite a bit worse in all this in a number of ways, both the ERG and the EU even have at times expressed anger at her for not delivering things which are not within her gift (not helped by her flop flopping on trying some of them in fairness). A test which is designed to fail is not really a test.
This looks like a spin exercise by the ERG, pretending to be willing to compromise whilst asking for something that they know is not achievable.
Or cover, in case their gambit fails and they need a way to back down whilst saving face.
If the ERG/DUP accept a permanent backstop they will be forced to consume a veritable banquet of words and promises they have made in the past, and put themselves in the firing line after Brexit when May's deal is revealed to put the UK in a dismal position in the future trade negotiations. Can't see it happening myself.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
Surely ''''Consider that a divorce!" would be most appropriate if it passes
Nice!
I also like the "It's just been revoked" Lethal Weapon line (as how Family Guy spoofed it).
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods. Of course there other advantages to the rUK staying in the Single Market (cross Channel trade). Alternatively, most people in Northern Ireland would welcome an FTZ for their territory, including many unionists. It would be nice if there were at least one winner from Brexit amongst all the losers.
That's what it is, really.
So why did the Irish government diverge from Northern Ireland by converting from mph to kmph ?
Divergence is in the eye of the beholder, the DUP in this case. NI's divergence from the UK's laws on abortion and gay marriage are an exercise in devolved democracy. But divergence in customs duties and trade arrangements are a threat to the integrity of the UK.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"?
"Hang on a minute lads. I've got a great idea."
Perhaps she would favour Scarlett O'Hara "Tommorow is another day"
Chicken and egg. The Tories needed to promise a referendum to halt the otherwise unstoppable rise of Ukip, and Ukip were popular because they were promising a referendum first.
It's impossible to prove either way, but Ukip did pretty well in the '09 EU elections and then did pretty dismally in the GE the following year. I remember that being followed by a sigh of relief from the main parties that the danger had passed, and people were prepared to register protest votes when it didn't matter, and revert to the main parties when it did. Later years disproved that thesis.
Conclusion: no one cares about Euro elections and it was Ukip's performances in locals and general election polling that forced Cameron to offer a commitment to a referendum.
But that circles back to my original premise. UKIP doing well is part of what got Cameron to pledge the referendum. However UKIP would never have been taken so seriously had they not consistently built up following ever-better electoral results under PR. PR and the European Parliament gave Farage a platform from which to be taken seriously.
True, except you can't prove that UKIP only got those votes due to the system being PR.
You have the general principle that people are more inclined to vote for "smaller" parties under PR due to less chance of a wasted vote, except that doesn't apply here because a) UKIP were doing so well in the polls that may not have mattered and b) it's well established that no one cares about the EU elections anyway.
A) Where did they ever do so well in the polls that it may not have mattered?
Even with the platform of the European Parliament to stand on and the oxygen of publicity that gave them, UKIP never polled that well. In 2009 UKIP were still polling as an unreported "Other" in the opinion polls. When Cameron made his pledge to hold a referendum in the first place UKIP were still never polling more than the single-digits to low-to-mid teens.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
Surely ''''Consider that a divorce!" would be most appropriate if it passes
Nice!
I also like the "It's just been revoked" Lethal Weapon line (as how Family Guy spoofed it).
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
The sincerity needs to be that if the UK diverges from the EU it must not affect the Irish border. Which means the UK has to leave Northern Ireland behind if it diverges, somewhat attached to the Republic, or not diverge at all on the regulation and trade of goods. Of course there other advantages to the rUK staying in the Single Market (cross Channel trade). Alternatively, most people in Northern Ireland would welcome an FTZ for their territory, including many unionists. It would be nice if there were at least one winner from Brexit amongst all the losers.
That's what it is, really.
So why did the Irish government diverge from Northern Ireland by converting from mph to kmph ?
Divergence is in the eye of the beholder, the DUP in this case. NI's divergence from the UK's laws on abortion and gay marriage are an exercise in devolved democracy. But divergence in customs duties and trade arrangements are a threat to the integrity of the UK.
Divergence is indeed in the eye the beholder
The DUP is happy to diverge from Britain when it suits it to do so and likewise the Irish government is happy to diverge from NI when it suits it to do so.
While UK governments pander to both these groups of hypocrites.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"?
"Hang on a minute lads. I've got a great idea."
Perhaps she would favour Scarlett O'Hara "Tommorow is another day"
She could deliver the Bette Davis line "What a dump!" and then walk out.
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
Lie Free or Die Hard Brexit
2 Meaningful 2 Vote. Meaningful Vote: Return of the Meaningful Vote (it was going to be Revenge of the Meaningful Vote, but there was a fan backlash) Meaningful Vote: The Saga Continues Meaningful Vote: It's Back And It's Angry Meaningful Vote: Blue Harvest Meaningful Vote: Something Something Something Dark Side Meaningful Vote: It's A Trap Meaningful Vote (the all-female reboot)
Chicken and egg. The Tories needed to promise a referendum to halt the otherwise unstoppable rise of Ukip, and Ukip were popular because they were promising a referendum first.
It's impossible to prove either way, but Ukip did pretty well in the '09 EU elections and then did pretty dismally in the GE the following year. I remember that being followed by a sigh of relief from the main parties that the danger had passed, and people were prepared to register protest votes when it didn't matter, and revert to the main parties when it did. Later years disproved that thesis.
Conclusion: no one cares about Euro elections and it was Ukip's performances in locals and general election polling that forced Cameron to offer a commitment to a referendum.
But that circles back to my original premise. UKIP doing well is part of what got Cameron to pledge the referendum. However UKIP would never have been taken so seriously had they not consistently built up following ever-better electoral results under PR. PR and the European Parliament gave Farage a platform from which to be taken seriously.
True, except you can't prove that UKIP only got those votes due to the system being PR.
You have the general principle that people are more inclined to vote for "smaller" parties under PR due to less chance of a wasted vote, except that doesn't apply here because a) UKIP were doing so well in the polls that may not have mattered and b) it's well established that no one cares about the EU elections anyway.
A) Where did they ever do so well in the polls that it may not have mattered?
Even with the platform of the European Parliament to stand on and the oxygen of publicity that gave them, UKIP never polled that well. In 2009 UKIP were still polling as an unreported "Other" in the opinion polls. When Cameron made his pledge to hold a referendum in the first place UKIP were still never polling more than the single-digits to low-to-mid teens.
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
The '09 elections were more than a decade after they'd become established in the European Parliament thanks to PR.
As for chicken and egg, I think we can by looking at the dramatic and overnight switch from two-party dominance to fractured voting when the system changed.
If it is just that people don't care about the European Elections then why did people not elect protest vote MEPs prior to 1999?
So what happens if MPs vote against the deal, against no deal, and against an extension?
No deal happens anyway, unless an alternative course of action is agreed.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
So meaningful vote 3 then ?
Meaningful Vote Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Meaningful Vote 4: Live Free or Die Hard
My estimation for May would go up slightly if she shouted a sort of 80's action film Arnie, Stallone or similar type movie quote as a non-sequitur at the point of getting a deal passed.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off"?
"Hang on a minute lads. I've got a great idea."
Perhaps she would favour Scarlett O'Hara "Tommorow is another day"
She could deliver the Bette Davis line "What a dump!" and then walk out.
An anti Brexit metropolitan elite that represents 48% of the country, and an overwhelming majority of members and voters accross the land? Tis a pretty broad definition of metropolian and of elite!
Though for more Labour voters it is a secondary issue, behing health, housing, stagnant incomes etc. The implication of this is that if the implementation of Brexit worsens rather than aleiviates these things in Stoke and Hartlepool, it rapidly becomes significant.
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
The '09 elections were more than a decade after they'd become established in the European Parliament thanks to PR.
As for chicken and egg, I think we can by looking at the dramatic and overnight switch from two-party dominance to fractured voting when the system changed.
If it is just that people don't care about the European Elections then why did people not elect protest vote MEPs prior to 1999?
They got a whole 3 seats in 1999. Hardly established.
You're correct that voting patterns changed between 94 and 99, but then a lot happened domestically during that time as well. And turnout fell off a cliff as well, which helped a lot.
Actually, looking at the figures, I think there's a better argument to be made that the Green breakthrough happened due to PR being brought in for the 99 Euros. They got 3% in 94, but no seats, and then 5.3% in 99, albeit with only 100k extra votes due to the lower turnout. That got them two seats. On the other hand, 3% in 94 (and nearly 500k votes) under FPTT was way more than they got in the 97 GE (or 01, or 05 for that matter).
So some support for your thesis, but also some indication that the smaller parties were doing a lot better at the Euros than domestically prior to PR, partly but not entirely due to lower turnout. That fair?
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
Convincing the Irish that the British are sincere about trying to protect their interests is not something that could be realistically tackled by a Tory government, still less one propped up by the DUP.
The DUP were once implacably opposed to SF, for decades on end. Yet, eventually Ian Paisley Sr. was happy to share power with Martin McGuiness.
So we can resolve these concerns over the backstop and possible sincerity on finding a solution if we give it a few decades?
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
The '09 elections were more than a decade after they'd become established in the European Parliament thanks to PR.
As for chicken and egg, I think we can by looking at the dramatic and overnight switch from two-party dominance to fractured voting when the system changed.
If it is just that people don't care about the European Elections then why did people not elect protest vote MEPs prior to 1999?
They got a whole 3 seats in 1999. Hardly established.
You're correct that voting patterns changed between 94 and 99, but then a lot happened domestically during that time as well. And turnout fell off a cliff as well, which helped a lot.
Actually, looking at the figures, I think there's a better argument to be made that the Green breakthrough happened due to PR being brought in for the 99 Euros. They got 3% in 94, but no seats, and then 5.3% in 99, albeit with only 100k extra votes due to the lower turnout. That got them two seats. On the other hand, 3% in 94 (and nearly 500k votes) under FPTT was way more than they got in the 97 GE (or 01, or 05 for that matter).
So some support for your thesis, but also some indication that the smaller parties were doing a lot better at the Euros than domestically prior to PR, partly but not entirely due to lower turnout. That fair?
Yes that seems fair, though I would point out in addition that while not an incredible haul with those 3 they established themselves as being electable.
The fact they got seats (as did the other parties) despite not getting many more votes than third parties had achieved before destroyed forever the notion that voting for a third party in Europe was a 'wasted vote'.
That gave a major boon to third parties and combined with the rather bizarre spectacle of Robert Kilroy-Silk that caused the minor party [ie excluding regional parties and traditional big 3 parties] share of the vote to nearly double at the 2004 European Elections. The rest as they say is history.
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
The '09 elections were more than a decade after they'd become established in the European Parliament thanks to PR.
As for chicken and egg, I think we can by looking at the dramatic and overnight switch from two-party dominance to fractured voting when the system changed.
If it is just that people don't care about the European Elections then why did people not elect protest vote MEPs prior to 1999?
They got a whole 3 seats in 1999. Hardly established.
You're correct that voting patterns changed between 94 and 99, but then a lot happened domestically during that time as well. And turnout fell off a cliff as well, which helped a lot.
Actually, looking at the figures, I think there's a better argument to be made that the Green breakthrough happened due to PR being brought in for the 99 Euros. They got 3% in 94, but no seats, and then 5.3% in 99, albeit with only 100k extra votes due to the lower turnout. That got them two seats. On the other hand, 3% in 94 (and nearly 500k votes) under FPTT was way more than they got in the 97 GE (or 01, or 05 for that matter).
So some support for your thesis, but also some indication that the smaller parties were doing a lot better at the Euros than domestically prior to PR, partly but not entirely due to lower turnout. That fair?
Yes that seems fair, though I would point out in addition that while not an incredible haul with those 3 they established themselves as being electable.
The fact they got seats (as did the other parties) despite not getting many more votes than third parties had achieved before destroyed forever the notion that voting for a third party in Europe was a 'wasted vote'.
That gave a major boon to third parties and combined with the rather bizarre spectacle of Robert Kilroy-Silk that caused the minor party [ie excluding regional parties and traditional big 3 parties] share of the vote to nearly double at the 2004 European Elections. The rest as they say is history.
Fair enough. I guess we can all count ourselves lucky the same was not true for the BNP in the late 2000s!
I was out to dinner with Irish American friends last night, and got a complete earful on Brexit and the Backstop last night,
Their view was that the DUP hated the Good Friday Agreement, and couldn't wait to tear it up. They honestly believe that the UK in general and the DUP in particular are insincere in their goal of a technological solution, and that they will use it as an excuse to separate Catholics in Northern Ireland from their cousins in the Republic.
They were rather drunk, somewhat better informed than I expected, and they were angry.
And it got me thinking.
We are doing a very poor job of understanding the people we're in a negotiation with. They doubt our sincerity as much as we doubt their's. (And, by the way, Michael Fabricant saying that the DUP has to be in favour of the deal sounds to Irish ears like "f*ck the Catholics".)
But the good news is that this does offer a way forward. Rather than fixating on the backstop iteself, we need to concentrate on making it so that the Republic doesn't worry that we're going to backslide. If we can convince them of our sincerity to produce a technical solution, they will be less desperate to protect themselves through the backstop.
Did your Irish American friends have any views on the Irish government hardening the border by converting from mph to kmph ?
I think there is a curious confusion here between "Irish American" and "Irish".
Did these Irish Americans have an opinion about the Sinn Fein/IRA Terrorist Campaign funded for decades by their community, which involved the murder of nearly 350 Irish (Northern and Southern) Catholics, significantly so that the Catholic Community would remain cowed before said terrorist campaign?
What was the view on the pre-Varadkar government that was quite happy to adopt a more flexible position?
I agree on the theoretical importance of convincing 'Irish Ears' on the technical borders point, but I think that the ship has long sailed. But Irish ears are not the same as "Irish American" ears. And I think Varadkar and his chums have nailed their flag to the mast of suspicion quite irrevocably.
Chicken and egg. The Tories needed to promise a referendum to halt the otherwise unstoppable rise of Ukip, and Ukip were popular because they were promising a referendum first.
It's impossible to prove either way, but Ukip did pretty well in the '09 EU elections and then did pretty dismally in the GE the following year. I remember that being followed by a sigh of relief from the main parties that the danger had passed, and people were prepared to register protest votes when it didn't matter, and revert to the main parties when it did. Later years disproved that thesis.
Conclusion: no one cares about Euro elections and it was Ukip's performances in locals and general election polling that forced Cameron to offer a commitment to a referendum.
But that circles back to my original premise. UKIP doing well is part of what got Cameron to pledge the referendum. However UKIP would never have been taken so seriously had they not consistently built up following ever-better electoral results under PR. PR and the European Parliament gave Farage a platform from which to be taken seriously.
True, except you can't prove that UKIP only got those votes due to the system being PR.
You have the general principle that people are more inclined to vote for "smaller" parties under PR due to less chance of a wasted vote, except that doesn't apply here because a) UKIP were doing so well in the polls that may not have mattered and b) it's well established that no one cares about the EU elections anyway.
And the evidence that FPTnP robs parties of votes is unclear. UKIP got 17% in a UK GE, after all. That our system robs those parties with more evenly distributed support (which if anything we should prefer) of representation is beyond argument.
Comments
One of the ironies of Brexit is that it has placed Ireland in a stronger position diplomatically than the UK, and a British PM is forced to go cap in hand to the EU to seek changes to a backstop which the Irish are seeking to impose on the British. In the past the boot has very much been on the other foot.
That's what it is, really.
Sane people who know that Labour under Corbyn can't be voted for have a home to go to now other than the Tories and Lib Dems.
It's a bit like saying 'what happens if Parliament votes for no rain at Wimbledon this year?' It's not in their power so it makes no difference.
Just like in 1992 in America Ross Perot was invited to the Presidential Debates due to his consistently high poll ratings.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-rally-live-stream-vermont-senator-holds-brooklyn-campaign-event-today-2019-03-02/
After all, it's easier to discard inconvenient information than to deal with it.
What they didn't want was a situation where the UK refused to implement any kind of technology for three years, and then put a genuine hard border in place, with passport checks and customs posts.
This is really, really important. We don't want the backstop, because we don't want the EU messing around, and not implementing a technical solution, therefore tying us in indefinitely. The (American) Irish I spoke to said a backstop was essential, because otherwise the British would never bother implementing a technical solution.
The solution is for us to focus rather more of our energies on the solution, and less on the backstop. This is hardly an impossible challenge. Sadly, it seems about 100 times the intellectual horsepower is being wasted on arguing about the backstop.
In the UK, the assumption is that we are sincere, and the Irish/EU are not.
In Dublin, the assumption is that Ireland is sincere, and the British/DUP are not.
Meaningful Vote 2: This Time It's Personal
Meaningful Vote 3: This Shit Just Got Serious
....
Perhaps I'm strange but I think it's better to let the Irish speak for the Irish.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted
But I think you're looking at this the wrong way. If you want to change someone's mind - in this case, to make them think they don't need the backstop, then you have to understand what concern the backstop "fixes" and then look to solve that.
And our concern is that Ireland and the EU are not sincere in their desire to look for a technological solution. Their concern is that the UK is not sincere.
The solution, which solves both these issues, is an independent commission of trade experts from outside of Europe that adjudges whether the parties are keeping to their treaty commitments of working to a solution. If they judge that the Irish/EU are stalling in implementaton, then we can walk away. If they judge that the UK is failing to work towards a technical solution, then we agree not to unilaterally break the backstop.
Regularly external progress reports would be good for all concerned.
You have the general principle that people are more inclined to vote for "smaller" parties under PR due to less chance of a wasted vote, except that doesn't apply here because a) UKIP were doing so well in the polls that may not have mattered and b) it's well established that no one cares about the EU elections anyway.
May I suggest either "He had to split" or "See you at the party, Richter!"
Of course if she loses MV2 she can go with "I'll be back"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDztrw_0N8M
I also like the "It's just been revoked" Lethal Weapon line (as how Family Guy spoofed it).
Even with the platform of the European Parliament to stand on and the oxygen of publicity that gave them, UKIP never polled that well. In 2009 UKIP were still polling as an unreported "Other" in the opinion polls. When Cameron made his pledge to hold a referendum in the first place UKIP were still never polling more than the single-digits to low-to-mid teens.
My voters are fed up with Labour’s anti-Brexit metropolitan elite"
https://labourlist.org/2019/03/my-voters-are-fed-up-with-labours-anti-brexit-metropolitan-elite/
The DUP is happy to diverge from Britain when it suits it to do so and likewise the Irish government is happy to diverge from NI when it suits it to do so.
While UK governments pander to both these groups of hypocrites.
Meaningful Vote: Return of the Meaningful Vote (it was going to be Revenge of the Meaningful Vote, but there was a fan backlash)
Meaningful Vote: The Saga Continues
Meaningful Vote: It's Back And It's Angry
Meaningful Vote: Blue Harvest
Meaningful Vote: Something Something Something Dark Side
Meaningful Vote: It's A Trap
Meaningful Vote (the all-female reboot)
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/1100842638486454273
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom#Opinion_polls
They also apparently did similarly well in 2004, although I don't remember too much about that.
Like I said before, chicken and egg. I can't prove that it was the switch to PR that gave people the confidence to vote for what would otherwise have been a fringe party with no hope of gaining many seats, and you can't prove that they weren't happy to register a protest vote at an election they thought made no difference to their lives.
As for chicken and egg, I think we can by looking at the dramatic and overnight switch from two-party dominance to fractured voting when the system changed.
If it is just that people don't care about the European Elections then why did people not elect protest vote MEPs prior to 1999?
Though for more Labour voters it is a secondary issue, behing health, housing, stagnant incomes etc. The implication of this is that if the implementation of Brexit worsens rather than aleiviates these things in Stoke and Hartlepool, it rapidly becomes significant.
You're correct that voting patterns changed between 94 and 99, but then a lot happened domestically during that time as well. And turnout fell off a cliff as well, which helped a lot.
Actually, looking at the figures, I think there's a better argument to be made that the Green breakthrough happened due to PR being brought in for the 99 Euros. They got 3% in 94, but no seats, and then 5.3% in 99, albeit with only 100k extra votes due to the lower turnout. That got them two seats. On the other hand, 3% in 94 (and nearly 500k votes) under FPTT was way more than they got in the 97 GE (or 01, or 05 for that matter).
So some support for your thesis, but also some indication that the smaller parties were doing a lot better at the Euros than domestically prior to PR, partly but not entirely due to lower turnout. That fair?
The fact they got seats (as did the other parties) despite not getting many more votes than third parties had achieved before destroyed forever the notion that voting for a third party in Europe was a 'wasted vote'.
That gave a major boon to third parties and combined with the rather bizarre spectacle of Robert Kilroy-Silk that caused the minor party [ie excluding regional parties and traditional big 3 parties] share of the vote to nearly double at the 2004 European Elections. The rest as they say is history.
Trevor Phillips"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/28/desperately-need-honest-links-race-gang-violence
Did these Irish Americans have an opinion about the Sinn Fein/IRA Terrorist Campaign funded for decades by their community, which involved the murder of nearly 350 Irish (Northern and Southern) Catholics, significantly so that the Catholic Community would remain cowed before said terrorist campaign?
What was the view on the pre-Varadkar government that was quite happy to adopt a more flexible position?
I agree on the theoretical importance of convincing 'Irish Ears' on the technical borders point, but I think that the ship has long sailed. But Irish ears are not the same as "Irish American" ears. And I think Varadkar and his chums have nailed their flag to the mast of suspicion quite irrevocably.