What impact will a British vote to leave the EU have on partition?

josephryan1989

If the majority of British voters vote to leave the EU but Unionists and Nationalists and Republicans vote in favour of retaining membership this could revolutionize Irish partition.

Border towns who benefit from the relaxed border that has existed for the past twenty years since the end of the Troubles would be back to square one.

Unionists political agreement with Republicans and Nationalists could serve to alienate Unionists from mainland Britain and perhaps in time transform attitudes and encourage Unionists to favor closer ties with the Republic.

Were Scottish and Welsh majorities to vote in favor of staying in the EU while England voted to leave it could accelerate the break up of Britain. The Scottish nationalists would push hard for independence in such a scenario.

The strong links that bind Protestant Unionists to Scotland would play a part in encouraging Northern Protestants to become increasingly separatist and abandon traditional loyalty to the monarchy. A rise in Protestant Republicanism night see the end of Orangism and Loyalism overnight and hasten Irish unity.

Obviously Unionists would want to remain autonomous within some kind of federalist United Ireland at first but if Britain remained outside of the EU this might soften in time.

johnnyskeleton

Well if we accept your premises that:
A) the UK votes to leave the EU and
both Ulster Unionists and Nationalists want to remain part of the EU above all other concerns,

then they would definately want to join a 32 county Irish State which is a member State of the EU.

Trouble is that:
A) for all the talk, I dont believe the UK population really wants to leave the EU; and
the UK/Ireland issue is far more important to Ulster Unionists than EU membership is.

Jawgap

It probably depends on the outcome of the vote in NI.

If the UK as a whole decides to exit the EU, but it's a case of the English vote dominating the outcome (England votes to leave, while NI, Scotland and/or Wales vote to stay) that creates an interesting dynamic.

No doubt the Scots would have a strong case for a referendum on independence.

For NI the options would probably be to accept the overall decision and remain in the Union, become part of the Republic (assuming the relevant referendums endorsed such a move) or independence.

Of the three, independence is the least likely, imo.

Wether it effects partition comes down to whether the population want to remain in the Union, or remain in the EU through a unified Ireland. I think if it comes down to that, the draw of the Union will be too great for them to give up.

demfad

The Union is so entrenched in northern Protestant identity. They see the existance of NI as an extension of their identity. Even if it is more pragmatic to enter a United Ireland, an extremely high majority will still favour the UK for identity/historical reasons IMO.

micosoft

The majority of parties in NI are rabidly anti-EU - both Sinn Fein and DUP despise liberal transnational projects as it runs counter to their xenophobic tribal identities. I can't imagine either would be too sorry seeing the EU go.

It's probably more likely that a UK exit would have an influence on Scotland leaving the Union. This would be have longer term impact on the UK but it won't be immediate and could happen even if they they stay in the EU.

There are a couple of treaty issues re Good Friday agreement but all resolvable.

Even if the UK leaves the EU (unlikely) they will still become part of EFTA (even the most extreme anti-EU heads want to remain in a trading relationship with the EU). Norway is a member of this and part of Schengan free movement arragement. So I really don't think we will see border checks as we can setup an updated arrangement between Ireland & UK for our free travel scheme.

Godge

micosoft wrote: »

The majority of parties in NI are rabidly anti-EU - both Sinn Fein and DUP despise liberal transnational projects as it runs counter to their xenophobic tribal identities. I can't imagine either would be too sorry seeing the EU go.

It's probably more likely that a UK exit would have an influence on Scotland leaving the Union. This would be have longer term impact on the UK but it won't be immediate and could happen even if they they stay in the EU.

There are a couple of treaty issues re Good Friday agreement but all resolvable.

Even if the UK leaves the EU (unlikely) they will still become part of EFTA (even the most extreme anti-EU heads want to remain in a trading relationship with the EU). Norway is a member of this and part of Schengan free movement arragement. So I really don't think we will see border checks as we can setup an updated arrangement between Ireland & UK for our free travel scheme.

The problem for Scotland is that if the UK leaves the EU and then Scotland votes for independence, Scotland has to apply from the start.

No guarantees there, especially when the Belgians, the Spanish and others have their own internal issues.

micosoft

Godge wrote: »

The problem for Scotland is that if the UK leaves the EU and then Scotland votes for independence, Scotland has to apply from the start.

No guarantees there, especially when the Belgians, the Spanish and others have their own internal issues.

That is a tricky one for the Scots alright. It's the pandora's box of nationalism that nobody wants to see. It's surprising those against the EU in the UK can't grasp that it works both ways. If the EU does not work for the UK why does the UK work for Scotland, NI etc?

Lt Dan

People of Northern Ireland, are entitled to Irish Passports, so they won't have any travelling difficulties

Ireland and Britain had the Common Travel Agreement in place long before joining the EEA/ EU. England didn't treat us like foreigners and we don't treat them like Foreigners . English people can vote in Dáil elections like other foreigners

It is highly unlikely that UK will leave the EEA as well. Their relationship with the EU will likely be like Switzerland and Norway, who enjoys some free movement rights

It is highly unlikely that the UK is going to do anything too drastic with their trade arrangements with Ireland. We are an important customer of theirs and they are a big customer of ours. It is not like the Commonwealth does anything for them economically , despite comical notions of the usefulness it is according to some West Brits here.

One advantage might be that the PSNI might actually control their border better and stop illegal immigrants sailing into Belfast from London and entering the Republic illegally - unlikely

So everyone is getting too hysterical

The real problem is that in Brussels Britain has been a major partner in talks revolving about immigration , taxation etc. Without their assistance, Ireland will be like a lamb to the slaughter when the French and Germans pick on us

Lt Dan

micosoft wrote: »

The majority of parties in NI are rabidly anti-EU - both Sinn Fein and DUP despise liberal transnational projects as it runs counter to their xenophobic tribal identities. I can't imagine either would be too sorry seeing the EU go.

It's probably more likely that a UK exit would have an influence on Scotland leaving the Union. This would be have longer term impact on the UK but it won't be immediate and could happen even if they they stay in the EU.

There are a couple of treaty issues re Good Friday agreement but all resolvable.

Even if the UK leaves the EU (unlikely) they will still become part of EFTA (even the most extreme anti-EU heads want to remain in a trading relationship with the EU). Norway is a member of this and part of Schengan free movement arragement. So I really don't think we will see border checks as we can setup an updated arrangement between Ireland & UK for our free travel scheme.

What ever about grass root members and supporters , Sinn Fein in the North are not "xenophobic" towards Non Irish Non British people. They are tripping themselves to try and get the immigrants on their side, just like in the South

Jawgap

Lt Dan wrote: »

What ever about grass root members and supporters , Sinn Fein in the North are not "xenophobic" towards Non Irish Non British people. They are tripping themselves to try and get the immigrants on their side, just like in the South

Maybe the parties are, but it certainly seems supporters (a minority, but an unignorable minority) have reservations.....

Poll: Majority against taking in fleeing migrants

More than half the electorate is opposed to allowing migrants fleeing north Africa to settle in this country, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll.

Asked if Ireland should offer to resettle migrants as part of an EU response to the problem in the Mediterranean 52 per cent of voters said Ireland should not offer while 48 per cent said we should.

Fine Gael supporters were strongest in support of offering to settle migrants with 61 per cent of them in favour while Sinn Féin voters were most strongly opposed with more than 70 per cent against the move.

Berserker

Jawgap wrote: »

I think if it comes down to that, the draw of the Union will be too great for them to give up.

This is the bottom line when it comes to the future of NI. The Union is just too good to ever consider giving up and they are right to think that. The Unionists have always believed in the strength of the Union but Nationalists understand the economic benefits of being part of the Union too nowadays.

micosoft wrote: »

The majority of parties in NI are rabidly anti-EU - both Sinn Fein and DUP despise liberal transnational projects as it runs counter to their xenophobic tribal identities. I can't imagine either would be too sorry seeing the EU go.

Good point, microsoft. Some people on this forum love nothing more than some good old unionist bashing, rolling out the usual stereotypes relating to their cultural identity but it is also important to note that their nationalist neighbours have been anti-EU on a consistent basis.

Lt Dan wrote: »

What ever about grass root members and supporters , Sinn Fein in the North are not "xenophobic" towards Non Irish Non British people. They are tripping themselves to try and get the immigrants on their side, just like in the South

I suggest you take a trip to some of the SF strongholds in Dublin and discuss the topic with them. You might alter your opinion on the matter afterwards.

Technique

Lt Dan wrote: »

People of Northern Ireland, are entitled to Irish Passports, so they won't have any travelling difficulties

Ireland and Britain had the Common Travel Agreement in place long before joining the EEA/ EU. England didn't treat us like foreigners and we don't treat them like Foreigners . English people can vote in Dáil elections like other foreigners

It is highly unlikely that UK will leave the EEA as well. Their relationship with the EU will likely be like Switzerland and Norway, who enjoys some free movement rights

It is highly unlikely that the UK is going to do anything too drastic with their trade arrangements with Ireland. We are an important customer of theirs and they are a big customer of ours. It is not like the Commonwealth does anything for them economically , despite comical notions of the usefulness it is according to some West Brits here.

One advantage might be that the PSNI might actually control their border better and stop illegal immigrants sailing into Belfast from London and entering the Republic illegally - unlikely

So everyone is getting too hysterical

The real problem is that in Brussels Britain has been a major partner in talks revolving about immigration , taxation etc. Without their assistance, Ireland will be like a lamb to the slaughter when the French and Germans pick on us

If the UK leaves the EU, there will be no special arrangements between Ireland and the UK regarding trade or movement of people.

No EU country can unilaterally negotiate deals with a non-EU country, and you can be sure that Brussels won't want to make it easy for Britain in case it encourages other countries to leave.

liamog

Technique wrote: »

If the UK leaves the EU, there will be no special arrangements between Ireland and the UK regarding trade or movement of people.

No EU country can unilaterally negotiate deals with a non-EU country, and you can be sure that Brussels won't want to make it easy for Britain in case it encourages other countries to leave.

That's just not correct, the EU does not prevent Bilateral Agreements between an EU State and a Third Party

Lt Dan

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe the parties are, but it certainly seems supporters (a minority, but an unignorable minority) have reservations.....

Poll: Majority against taking in fleeing migrants

Most of the country , most of Europe is against taking in "fleeing migrants".

What has gone on in Germany and in Calais and Paris strengthens that attitude. Incidents that were predicted and are inevitable. Opposition is cross party.

Because, a vast proportion of those "fleeing" are not from the countries that they claim to be from. North Africa? Really?


Seems the term Xenophobia and racism are becoming more meaningless by the day

Lt Dan

Technique wrote: »

If the UK leaves the EU, there will be no special arrangements between Ireland and the UK regarding trade or movement of people.

No EU country can unilaterally negotiate deals with a non-EU country, and you can be sure that Brussels won't want to make it easy for Britain in case it encourages other countries to leave.

My god.

Please provide the Article the the two EU Treaties that support that?

Ireland and Britain have always had political arrangements since the birth of the Free State and the Republic. Many British Citizens who are resident, but not Irish Citizens can actually vote in Dáil Éireann elections unlike other EU citizens, We can vote and run in British elections. Grated things will be tricky with new taxes on goods but....

We don't have to run to Brussels to get the all clear if we want to do deals with China or India or America.

As our relationship with Non EU countries are solo runs and have nothing to do with the EU, the EU would not have competence to interfere with such dealings (so long as it remains out of the remit of areas covered and concerning the Single market)

The EU Treaty makes it clear that a country and unilaterally leave the EU. It doesn't have to ask. France and Germany, publicly seem happy enough with the notion of Britain leaving... not sure what they think in private

Britain will likely remain part of the European Economic Area like Norway and chums.

People are getting far too hysterical

Jim2007

Lt Dan wrote: »

Please provide the Article the the two EU Treaties that support that?

...

We don't have to run to Brussels to get the all clear if we want to do deals with China or India or America.

...

As our relationship with Non EU countries are solo runs and have nothing to do with the EU, the EU would not have competence to interfere with such dealings (so long as it remains out of the remit of areas covered and concerning the Single market)

Trade policy is an exclusive power of the EU. This means that the EU, and not individual member states, negotiates international trade agreements. The European Commission negotiates with the trading partner on behalf of the whole EU but does so in close cooperation with the Council and European Parliament who ultimately approve the overall agreement.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149616.pdf

Charles Babbage

demfad wrote: »

The Union is so entrenched in northern Protestant identity. They see the existance of NI as an extension of their identity. Even if it is more pragmatic to enter a United Ireland, an extremely high majority will still favour the UK for identity/historical reasons IMO.

Exactly. NI is a colonial entity established to promote a sordid 17th century sectarian colonisation project. All the other guff about the benefits of the Union is mere disguise.

The sad thing is that many people here are happy to have Irish people subjected to this, just so as they can slag off the Shinners.

As to the main issue, any imposition of customs etc is a clear breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Good Friday Agreement and as such is likely to be destabilising. It is valid to point out that special arrangements have existed in these islands, but the Brexit project is not a rational one and they will throw these away along with everything else.

Scofflaw

Jim2007 wrote: »

Trade policy is an exclusive power of the EU. This means that the EU, and not individual member states, negotiates international trade agreements. The European Commission negotiates with the trading partner on behalf of the whole EU but does so in close cooperation with the Council and European Parliament who ultimately approve the overall agreement.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149616.pdf

It's one of the points in the Brexit debate, that the UK could make its own trade deals. Admittedly, proponents seem to assume that the UK could easily get deals as good as those the EU gets despite its much smaller size, but still.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ancapailldorcha

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's one of the points in the Brexit debate, that the UK could make its own trade deals. Admittedly, proponents seem to assume that the UK could easily get deals as good as those the EU gets despite its much smaller size, but still.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How long would such deals take to compose though? Surely being part of the EU adds most clout to the UK when making deals.

Scofflaw

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How long would such deals take to compose though? Surely being part of the EU adds most clout to the UK when making deals.

I don't think the pro-Brexit side is being particularly realistic about the matter. The UK is a large trading economy, and pro-Brexit arguments tend to compare it with other large national economies - increasingly, though, trade deals are between blocs that dwarf the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

theflipdave

Interesting question. I do think that Sinn Fein are becoming more Pro EU because of upcoming referendum. I did always consider them to be more eurosceptic than most parties. Along the lines of Syriza.

KingBrian2

It is up to the Brits to be in or out. Let them have their referendum and way up the pros and cons. I don't believe we should be saying join join or go away. It is a British decision and if they care at all about Europe they will vote to stay in and maybe to work with the € Nations maybe becoming the Switzerland of the North Sea.

Scofflaw

theflipdave wrote: »

Interesting question. I do think that Sinn Fein are becoming more Pro EU because of upcoming referendum. I did always consider them to be more eurosceptic than most parties. Along the lines of Syriza.

I find that if you look back over SF's stance in EU referendums, they've become progressively less eurosceptic over the last 20-30 years. Their performances at Lisbon and the Stability Treaty referendums were quite nuanced - for example, this is from their "No to Lisbon" material:

Sinn Féin believes Ireland’s place is in Europe. Co-operation with our European partners is valuable and must continue. Sinn Féin has supported EU measures that are in Ireland’s interests in relation to Irish agriculture, the environment and equality. We welcome EU support for the peace process in Ireland and for the development of infrastructure. However, not everything has been good and this Treaty is a step too far and is a bad deal for Ireland.

Contrary to what the government has claimed no matter how people vote in the referendum Ireland’s place in the EU will be secure.

You can support the EU and be against the Lisbon Treaty. You can support the EU and still want to see democracy and accountability. You can support the EU and still believe that our government should use their position positively and not go along with what suits the larger countries.

I wouldn't call that eurosceptic. 'Eurocritical', certainly, which is the general position of the GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament SF are part of. They'd like to see a different, more socially oriented EU, not the "return to a free trade area and nothing more" that is a staple of softer euroscepticism, and definitely not the dissolution or withdrawal favoured by harder eurosceptics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

KingBrian2

Scofflaw wrote: »

I find that if you look back over SF's stance in EU referendums, they've become progressively less eurosceptic over the last 20-30 years. Their performances at Lisbon and the Stability Treaty referendums were quite nuanced - for example, this is from their "No to Lisbon" material:



I wouldn't call that eurosceptic. 'Eurocritical', certainly, which is the general position of the GUE/NGL group in the European Parliament SF are part of. They'd like to see a different, more socially oriented EU, not the "return to a free trade area and nothing more" that is a staple of softer euroscepticism, and definitely not the dissolution or withdrawal favoured by harder eurosceptics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

They recognise the importance of Europe but front and centre must be the values of Europe and I for one agree with President Higgin's position via Europe. Take America for example we have shown to have very little weight when it comes to how America governs the world what with Shannon Airport. At least as Europeans we can make our own decisions and like Britain opt out of legislation that would impact us negatively. Either way were part of the world but with Europe we can make a difference to Europe's neighbors. Were neutral so the Russians, Turks, Israelis and Arab understand that we speak our mind and are not controlled by Washington. We might be a small little island with very little resources but we have rights and diplomatic relations with most Nations on the planet.

Lt Dan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

They recognise the importance of Europe but front and centre must be the values of Europe and I for one agree with President Higgin's position via Europe. Take America for example we have shown to have very little weight when it comes to how America governs the world what with Shannon Airport. At least as Europeans we can make our own decisions and like Britain opt out of legislation that would impact us negatively. Either way were part of the world but with Europe we can make a difference to Europe's neighbors. Were neutral so the Russians, Turks, Israelis and Arab understand that we speak our mind and are not controlled by Washington. We might be a small little island with very little resources but we have rights and diplomatic relations with most Nations on the planet.

The problem is the lessening of Irish influence (if there was ever any) and dilution of votes (which is proportional to be fair) with the ever expanding Union. No country, the size of Ireland would have the balls to veto the entry of another State - The idea of inducting Turkey is madness. So too was Bulgaria and Romania - Though, maybe France and chums could have said that about Ireland in the 1970's?

The opt out clauses are going to get even harder to get in the future.

In 1997, supporters of Amsterdam Treaty declared that we were needlessly worrying about EU interfering or complaining or pressure a country on its criminal laws , extradition laws, military and Immigration/Asylum. We got opt out clauses. Most recent Treaty brought a lot of that stuff within the remit of the EU - EU now is the source of Asylum legislation (although our 1996 Act came before EU got power, and it appears that Ireland already was in compliance) Now EU have power to dictate to a country about how many asylum seekers a country should let in. If we refuse, we get bullied financially . They refuse to listen to what Britain has been banging on about - Terrifyingly , Germany failed to understand the concept of "refugee" and seemed to think that it included economic migrants. Their justification? Their population was getting older and they need youth. That is nice, couldn't they have done that without involving the rest of the Union? Yes. Did they consider the needs of other countries ? No

For several years, IBEC et all talked down to Irish people who feared that Ireland would be forced to change their corporation tax rate. We got clauses to expressly state that EU had no competency in this. ( To be fair the Treaties at the time had no power, but there were mechanisms to allow change) Now we have spent at least 6 years being talked down to by various EU States and our right to deal with our tax rates has been threatened.


People were considered loonies for referring to EU would force abortion on demand. Now that the EU has incorporated the ECHR and is cited more, who knows?. While the famous ABC case stated that they could not force abortion on demand and actually ruled on what our Constitution had already stated, the arrogance of the unelected and unaccountable dissenting judges on the issues of abortion on demand was terrifying. 4: 3 was the majority. The terrifying aspect is not abortion per se, it could be on anything. It is the way the Courts in CJEU and Court of ECHR are allowed to impose judicial activism and create imaginary loop holes and dodgy interpretation of the text of the European Treaties, even where there is no precedent and difficult to interpret the text in the way that they do/did

The Union is no longer a place for the small country or even any country that disagrees with Germany and to a lesser extent, lately, France. It is still not democratic. Though the low turnout rates for European Parliament elections is hardly encouraging. MEP's are lucky to get 10 minutes talking time in Parliament in a year , it is so big.

They have had since 1993 to sort out the democratic deficit within the Union and have stilled failed. To be fair, countries are mindful if they cede to more powers and public input, it essentially means a recognition of a long time hope of a nothing country like Belgium - A Federal Europe. This idea has been rejected by most States, even Germany. We have how easily the EU Constitution got rejected by the Dutch and French - yet when the few offending pieces were removed by Lisbon everyone was okay about it - accept Ireland - initially .

Is the Euro currency really to blame? (genuine question) When it came in, we were in a boom (a false one from 2003 onwards) while I believe (correct me on this) Germany was in a bit of a recession

The EEC project that started out as suppose to being based on economic unity, delved far too far into non economic issues single the establishment of the EU. With the latest asylum crisis and criticism of the Union Institutions in it's dealing with Ireland during the bail out perhaps the EU love in might cool down, even in countries, like Ireland, who were once hard core, top of the class supporters of the EU. Foreign Policy and issues non related to other EU States should have always remained within the remit of the individual State.

KingBrian2

Lt Dan wrote: »

The problem is the lessening of Irish influence (if there was ever any) and dilution of votes (which is proportional to be fair) with the ever expanding Union. No country, the size of Ireland would have the balls to veto the entry of another State - The idea of inducting Turkey is madness. So too was Bulgaria and Romania - Though, maybe France and chums could have said that about Ireland in the 1970's?

The opt out clauses are going to get even harder to get in the future.

In 1997, supporters of Amsterdam Treaty declared that we were needlessly worrying about EU interfering or complaining or pressure a country on its criminal laws , extradition laws, military and Immigration/Asylum. We got opt out clauses. Most recent Treaty brought a lot of that stuff within the remit of the EU - EU now is the source of Asylum legislation (although our 1996 Act came before EU got power, and it appears that Ireland already was in compliance) Now EU have power to dictate to a country about how many asylum seekers a country should let in. If we refuse, we get bullied financially . They refuse to listen to what Britain has been banging on about - Terrifyingly , Germany failed to understand the concept of "refugee" and seemed to think that it included economic migrants. Their justification? Their population was getting older and they need youth. That is nice, couldn't they have done that without involving the rest of the Union? Yes. Did they consider the needs of other countries ? No

For several years, IBEC et all talked down to Irish people who feared that Ireland would be forced to change their corporation tax rate. We got clauses to expressly state that EU had no competency in this. ( To be fair the Treaties at the time had no power, but there were mechanisms to allow change) Now we have spent at least 6 years being talked down to by various EU States and our right to deal with our tax rates has been threatened.


People were considered loonies for referring to EU would force abortion on demand. Now that the EU has incorporated the ECHR and is cited more, who knows?. While the famous ABC case stated that they could not force abortion on demand and actually ruled on what our Constitution had already stated, the arrogance of the unelected and unaccountable dissenting judges on the issues of abortion on demand was terrifying. 4: 3 was the majority. The terrifying aspect is not abortion per se, it could be on anything. It is the way the Courts in CJEU and Court of ECHR are allowed to impose judicial activism and create imaginary loop holes and dodgy interpretation of the text of the European Treaties, even where there is no precedent and difficult to interpret the text in the way that they do/did

The Union is no longer a place for the small country or even any country that disagrees with Germany and to a lesser extent, lately, France. It is still not democratic. Though the low turnout rates for European Parliament elections is hardly encouraging. MEP's are lucky to get 10 minutes talking time in Parliament in a year , it is so big.

They have had since 1993 to sort out the democratic deficit within the Union and have stilled failed. To be fair, countries are mindful if they cede to more powers and public input, it essentially means a recognition of a long time hope of a nothing country like Belgium - A Federal Europe. This idea has been rejected by most States, even Germany. We have how easily the EU Constitution got rejected by the Dutch and French - yet when the few offending pieces were removed by Lisbon everyone was okay about it - accept Ireland - initially .

Is the Euro currency really to blame? (genuine question) When it came in, we were in a boom (a false one from 2003 onwards) while I believe (correct me on this) Germany was in a bit of a recession

The EEC project that started out as suppose to being based on economic unity, delved far too far into non economic issues single the establishment of the EU. With the latest asylum crisis and criticism of the Union Institutions in it's dealing with Ireland during the bail out perhaps the EU love in might cool down, even in countries, like Ireland, who were once hard core, top of the class supporters of the EU. Foreign Policy and issues non related to other EU States should have always remained within the remit of the individual State.

Europe definitely needs to change to reflect the wishes of the member states but political parties from across the continent has been resisting that drive for European integration We need a centralised European gvt that allows each of the parliaments to decide what's best. The European Parliament is only useful for blocking pan European projects the parliaments should take back that control. I agree on that.

micosoft

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How long would such deals take to compose though? Surely being part of the EU adds most clout to the UK when making deals.

Well it's even more explicit then that. The US have stated they have no interest signing any form of billateral deal with the UK.

micosoft

Lt Dan wrote: »

The problem is the lessening of Irish influence (if there was ever any) and dilution of votes (which is proportional to be fair) with the ever expanding Union.

etc etc

The EEC project that started out as suppose to being based on economic unity, delved far too far into non economic issues single the establishment of the EU. With the latest asylum crisis and criticism of the Union Institutions in it's dealing with Ireland during the bail out perhaps the EU love in might cool down, even in countries, like Ireland, who were once hard core, top of the class supporters of the EU. Foreign Policy and issues non related to other EU States should have always remained within the remit of the individual State.

I'm really not sure if there is a single statement in there that is true. But lets start with the first & last statements.

Are you seriously arguing that Ireland, a country of 4 Million people on the periphery of Europe does not have serious influence far outside what our economy, population and military strength might suggest?

As for the last one. The Treaty of Rome in 1957 explicitly stated that the EEC as it was called then would be "a ever union". The British People were informed of this by a flyer that went to every home in the UK when the referendum to join the EC which stated this.

Scofflaw

Lt Dan wrote:

For several years, IBEC et all talked down to Irish people who feared that Ireland would be forced to change their corporation tax rate. We got clauses to expressly state that EU had no competency in this. ( To be fair the Treaties at the time had no power, but there were mechanisms to allow change) Now we have spent at least 6 years being talked down to by various EU States and our right to deal with our tax rates has been threatened.

This is one of the constant confusions in EU debates - between "the EU" as an institution, and "the EU" as one or more Member States.

In this case, "the EU" as an institution does indeed have no powers over our corporation tax. Comments by individual Member States are not comment by "the EU", they are comments by the current governments of those countries, and have nothing to do with the institutional EU or its powers. They are comments that would happen in any version of Europe at peace.

cordially,
Scofflaw

micosoft

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is up to the Brits to be in or out. Let them have their referendum and way up the pros and cons. I don't believe we should be saying join join or go away. It is a British decision and if they care at all about Europe they will vote to stay in and maybe to work with the € Nations maybe becoming the Switzerland of the North Sea.

Obviously only they can vote on the referendum. That said Ireland and the UK have a complex historical relationship and we have a direct interest in the UK's relationship through the Good Friday agreement and Northern Ireland. We have a right and duty to point out to the electorate of the UK that their vote will have a direct impact on their relationship with the Irish State and Northern Ireland. They cannot simply scrap an international relationship they have with the EU without also opening up the Anglo Irish relationship. Alongside membership of the European Convention on Human Rights which is another trope of the anti-eu wing in the UK (despite having nothing to do with the EU).

KingBrian2

micosoft wrote: »

Obviously only they can vote on the referendum. That said Ireland and the UK have a complex historical relationship and we have a direct interest in the UK's relationship through the Good Friday agreement and Northern Ireland. We have a right and duty to point out to the electorate of the UK that their vote will have a direct impact on their relationship with the Irish State and Northern Ireland. They cannot simply scrap an international relationship they have with the EU without also opening up the Anglo Irish relationship. Alongside membership of the European Convention on Human Rights which is another trope of the anti-eu wing in the UK (despite having nothing to do with the EU).

Agree with you for the most part.

ChicagoIrish

we have a free movement agreement with england independent of schengen and the EU (neither of us are part of schengen after all), so it wouldn't make a difference to the border unless they threw the treaty in the bin

Scofflaw

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

we have a free movement agreement with england independent of schengen and the EU (neither of us are part of schengen after all), so it wouldn't make a difference to the border unless they threw the treaty in the bin

Treaties aren't absolute. The border between the UK and Ireland would also be an external EU border if the UK leaves the EU, which is a rather different situation to the current one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

we have a free movement agreement with england independent of schengen and the EU (neither of us are part of schengen after all),

No we don't.

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

so it wouldn't make a difference to the border unless they threw the treaty in the bin

Nor is that true.

ancapailldorcha

View wrote: »

No we don't.



Nor is that true.

Please try and contribute more than this.

Thanks.

purplepanda

Scofflaw wrote: »

Treaties aren't absolute. The border between the UK and Ireland would also be an external EU border if the UK leaves the EU, which is a rather different situation to the current one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The CTA already covers external travel between EU nations, UK & Ireland & non EU external crown dependancies with the Isle of Man & the Channel Islands.

Introducing border controls in Ireland would be very expensive, so just adapt the CTA if events change.

I do think England will vote to leave the EU, but the UK as a whole won't. It could be the start of a real surge in English nationalism similar to Scotland's
after the vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/eu-referendum-english-votes-offset-by-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-uk

Scofflaw

purplepanda wrote: »

The CTA already covers external travel between EU nations, UK & Ireland & non EU external crown dependancies with the Isle of Man & the Channel Islands.

Introducing border controls in Ireland would be very expensive, so just adapt the CTA if events change.

I do think England will vote to leave the EU, but the UK as a whole won't. It could be the start of a real surge in English nationalism similar to Scotland's
after the vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/02/eu-referendum-english-votes-offset-by-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-uk

The CTA is both rather more complex and rather more nebulous than generally thought to be. First, it's a relatively informal agreement rather than a treaty, so there are no legal barriers to amending it if the UK withdraws from the EU. Second, it has varied in scope quite widely during its existence, up to and including a suspension of free movement between the island of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

Having had a look at the complexity of arrangements already in place, though - such as different lists of visa requirements (so that a South African is allowed in Ireland visa-free, but requires a UK visa to visit the North) - it does seem likely that the CTA could continue even in the event of Brexit without the imposition of border controls at the Northern Irish border, at least as far as Ireland and the UK are concerned.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Charles Babbage

If Brexit occurs then Irish opinion of all shades should demand that there be an "EU" for the island of Ireland at least, freedom of movement of goods and people and practical harmonisation arrangements of all sorts.

ted1

josephryan1989 wrote: »

If the majority of British voters vote to leave the EU but Unionists and Nationalists and Republicans vote in favour of retaining membership this could revolutionize Irish partition.

Border towns who benefit from the relaxed border that has existed for the past twenty years since the end of the Troubles would be back to square one.

Unionists political agreement with Republicans and Nationalists could serve to alienate Unionists from mainland Britain and perhaps in time transform attitudes and encourage Unionists to favor closer ties with the Republic.

Were Scottish and Welsh majorities to vote in favor of staying in the EU while England voted to leave it could accelerate the break up of Britain. The Scottish nationalists would push hard for independence in such a scenario.

The strong links that bind Protestant Unionists to Scotland would play a part in encouraging Northern Protestants to become increasingly separatist and abandon traditional loyalty to the monarchy. A rise in Protestant Republicanism night see the end of Orangism and Loyalism overnight and hasten Irish unity.

Obviously Unionists would want to remain autonomous within some kind of federalist United Ireland at first but if Britain remained outside of the EU this might soften in time.

Ireland and the Uk will continue their relationship and bi lateral trade agreements. Nothing will change there

ted1

If Britain exit the eu then allot of the MNC based in the uk will relocate to Dublin. ( English speaking EU country) we will maintain bi lateral trade agreements but the EU may impose duty on goods coming from Britan so well benefit and sterling will devalue.
The biggest worry is if Brussels panics and allows turkey to joints make up numbers .

There will also be a power struggle with the larger euro countries that would not be if benefit to use unless we took the Tony Gregory approach and sold outer loyalty

whatstherush

ted1 wrote: »

Ireland and the Uk will continue their relationship and bi lateral trade agreements. Nothing will change there

You can't have bi-lateral trade agreements between individual countries, where one of those countries is a member of a trading block.

Just game it out. Say GB has a bi-lateral agreement with Ireland on Beef, but nothing with the rest of the EU. So any UK Beef entering the continent directly has for example sake a 50% tarrif while Ireland with its bi-lateral agreement has 0% tarrif.

Where do you think 100% of british beef exports are going to go? Into Ireland and with Ireland having free trade with the rest of the EU, where do you think it will go from there? And what do the EU countries that have no Bilateral agreement with GB, going to say when there is tariff free british beef sold in their countries?

A brexit GB will do a trade deal with all of the EU, but there won't be any bi-lateral trade agreements between individual countries and GB.

Sam Russell

whatstherush wrote: »

You can't have bi-lateral trade agreements between individual countries, where one of those countries is a member of a trading block.

Just game it out. Say GB has a bi-lateral agreement with Ireland on Beef, but nothing with the rest of the EU. So any UK Beef entering the continent directly has for example sake a 50% tarrif while Ireland with its bi-lateral agreement has 0% tarrif.

Where do you think 100% of british beef exports are going to go? Into Ireland and with Ireland having free trade with the rest of the EU, where do you think it will go from there? And what do the EU countries that have no Bilateral agreement with GB, going to say when there is tariff free british beef sold in their countries?

A brexit GB will do a trade deal with all of the EU, but there won't be any bi-lateral trade agreements between individual countries and GB.

Britain imports beef from Ireland but exports a lot less. A simple solution is Britain continues to import beef from Ireland but is not allowed to export to Ireland as there would be a tariff. Of course, the leaky border would allow cattle to 'emigrate'.

whatstherush

Sam Russell wrote: »

Britain imports beef from Ireland but exports a lot less. A simple solution is Britain continues to import beef from Ireland but is not allowed to export to Ireland as there would be a tariff. Of course, the leaky border would allow cattle to 'emigrate'.

Beef is just an example, at the end of the day, any bi lateral agreement, is going to result in UK goods cheaper in Ireland than the rest of the EU and from there they can be exported anywhere in the EU.

Galwayguy35

BBC Newsline were interviewing people on the streets of Belfast this week and quite a few of them were in favour of leaving.

I found this a bit strange considering they are on the Island of Ireland and it could make things more difficult crossing over into the Republic if Britain leaves.

It seems Teresa Villiers is in the No camp as well.

whatstherush

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

BBC Newsline were interviewing people on the streets of Belfast this week and quite a few of them were in favour of leaving.

I found this a bit strange considering they are on the Island of Ireland and it could make things more difficult crossing over into the Republic if Britain leaves.

It seems Teresa Villiers is in the No camp as well.

Northern Ireland are 75‰ stay according to this poll C4 news

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-split-eu/22312

goat2

whatstherush wrote: »

Northern Ireland are 75‰ stay according to this poll C4 news

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-britain-split-eu/22312

Boris is for out,
watching him right now on sky news, he is well able to speak and give his reasons, wish we had someone like him here

Mr.Nice Guy

I was listening to a Radio 4 phone-in discussion and most of the callers favoured Brexit. I am thinking at the moment that if it were to be held tomorrow it would result in a vote to leave as there seems to be an emotional instinct for exiting amongst many English people.

I'm not sure if the 'remain' camp have anyone that will galvanize public opinion to a sufficient degree in favour of staying in. Hilary Benn perhaps?

timthumbni

I'm in the undecided camp to be honest. I want away from the eu bureaucratic nonsense but am a wee bit scared of the outcome if we do. I shouldn't be but I am. At the moment I think I will vote out though.

oppenheimer1

timthumbni wrote: »

I'm in the undecided camp to be honest. I want away from the eu bureaucratic nonsense but am a wee bit scared of the outcome if we do. I shouldn't be but I am. At the moment I think I will vote out though.

Often quoted by the eurosceptic british media, but examples never given.

Can you give an example of euro bureaucracy that annoys you, hinders you, or costs you money or opportunities?

CelticRambler

It'll come down to cold, hard economics, IMO. Assuming (now! :rolleyes: ) Britain votes to leave, it's clear that Scotland will push for a second Independence referendum, which they'll probably win with a mandate to seek a fast-track restitution of their EU membership. For the reasons stated above, the EU will be keen to "make up numbers" and highlight the attraction of being part of the EU, so Scotland will get their membership PDQ (as part of the UK, they're pretty much harmonised by default, so what's to negotiate?)

Chapter Two: all those financial institutions that haven't already decamped from London to Dublin to take advantage of an anglophone EU city will now have the option of moving north instead of west. There are advantages to staying on the same island. You can be sure that both Glasgow and Edinburgh will fight like crazy to grab that business. And in the meantime, they'll have got rid of APD and be promoting direct flights to the US and the middle-east as an alternative to Heathrow and Manchester.

Chapter Three. Both sides of the divide in Belfast will be looking at EU-Scotland in one direction, EU-Dublin in another, and Billy-No-Mates London "way over there". It won't take them long to realise that being a remote non-EU enclave between two thriving global economies isn't half the fun that London promised. They might try to turn themselves into a version of the Isle of Man, but it'll be a dam sight easier to swallow out-dated Orange pride and finish the "alignment" with the Republic that's already well established.

Galwayguy35

The DUP are in the Out camp as well, bit surprising seeing as the North did benefit from EU funding.

It already costs Britain a lot of money to prop up NI, if they leave and the EU money isn't coming in anymore it will cost a lot more.