Brexit discussion thread II

wes

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU state the obvious and tell the Tories that they are putting the interests their party above those of NI. Breaking neutrality and siding with the DUP for one.The prime minister was accused of a lack of “care” for the peace process by one senior EU official.

I'm glad someone else sees it.


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/12/eu-says-tories-putting-party-before-interests-northern-ireland

Time for legal action from the Irish government. There breaking the good Friday agreement imo.

blanch152

wes wrote: »

Time for legal action from the Irish government. There breaking the good Friday agreement imo.

I keep hearing this argument that Brexit and the Tories are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the same time, nobody has ever pasted a link to the exact clause or paragraph or section of the GFA that is being broken.

Yes, at one level it can be argued that the spirit of the GFA is being broken (but that is an argument rather than a fact) but you cannot take legal action based on that.

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

I could be wrong on this, but I believe given this is a UK government alleged breach, the first port of call would be to the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

If there was an actual disagreement between the two governments, then perhaps International Court of Arbitration given I doubt UK will be happy for determination by the European courts.

wes

blanch152 wrote: »

I keep hearing this argument that Brexit and the Tories are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the same time, nobody has ever pasted a link to the exact clause or paragraph or section of the GFA that is being broken.

Yes, at one level it can be argued that the spirit of the GFA is being broken (but that is an argument rather than a fact) but you cannot take legal action based on that.

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

I am not a legal expert, but they have certainly broken neutrality and if they pull out of the ECHR, which under pins a lot of agreement, they would be a far more definitive breach.

blanch152

wes wrote: »

I am not a legal expert, but they have certainly broken neutrality and if they pull out of the ECHR, which under pins a lot of agreement, they would be a far more definitive breach.

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

I would assume propping up Government using the DUP certainly breaks neutrality. something which was required for Brexit.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

The neutrality argument stems from the requirement that the British government be neutral in determination of the political agenda of the North (i.e. nationalist/unionist) and by engaging with the DUP and, more importantly, "becoming indebted" (which I'm still a little fuzzy on myself) somehow breaches that neutrality requirement. (I should note, I did a quick skim of the GFA just there and didn't immediately see where this would be enshrined in the agreement itself).

Compliance with the ECHR and ECtHR decisions are required by clause 5(b) and (c) of the agreement, so technically the UK doesn't need to be a "member" of the ECtHR so long as the legislation, public bodies and assembly comply with the decisions and the ECHR. I'd argue whether the UK is a "member" of the ECtHR, they are significantly likely to still comply with the scope of those decisions.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

I would assume propping up Government using the DUP certainly breaks neutrality. something which was required for Brexit.

I note the word "neutrality" (or derivative "neutral") is not contained in the GFA. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but I have to agree with blanch152 here... it's very vague that people are discussing breaches of the GFA without actually identifying the breach.

listermint

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/

It is worth explaining where these concerns are coming from. First, think about the idea of ‘rigorous impartiality’. This is central to the Good Friday Agreement and to the British-Irish Agreement (an international treaty between the UK and Ireland).The concept flows from the complex right of self-determination on which the current British-Irish constitutional compromise is based.

This is the notion that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland alone; subject to the wishes of a majority of people in Northern Ireland (the consent principle). That is a choice that should be freely made and without detriment to anyone. It means that whoever exercises sovereign jurisdiction now (UK) ‘shall’ do so on an impartial basis ‘on behalf of all the people’ and that this:

‘shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;’
The same principle would apply to the Irish Government in the event of a vote (north and south) for Irish unity. This is why there is so much discussion of neutrality and impartiality. Any deal between the Conservative Party and the DUP that infringed the above principles or strayed directly onto Good Friday Agreement territory (such as, for example, ruling out a unity referendum) runs a real risk of being in breach of Article 1 of the British-Irish Agreement.

POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

ambro25

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I could be wrong on this, but I believe given this is a UK government alleged breach, the first port of call would be to the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

If there was an actual disagreement between the two governments, then perhaps International Court of Arbitration given I doubt UK will be happy for determination by the European courts.

I think you're right about the UK Supreme Court, given that it is the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which effectively implements the GFA on the British jurisdictional side.

The ICJ in The Hague is out of the picture, given that Ireland (at the time it signed up to the jurisdiction of ICJ) states that it recognises the jurisdiction of the ICJ “with the exception of any legal dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regard to Northern Ireland”. So this explicitly prevents the Good Friday Agreement being discussed in the International Court of Justice.

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/



POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

The last sentence is key; if the deal does directly result in inequality between the communities then there is an issue but if it doesn't then there isn't. I'm positive that in 1998 if you told anyone on these two islands that there would be a Northern Irish political party in a position that the DUP are currently in you'd be looked at like an insane person, but I would have to suggest that the GFA was never drafted to envisage this situation however surely it wasn't drafted to prevent any such agreement.

I fundamentally agree that Brexit is a significant issue with regard to the constitutional status of N.I. and this should be considered but I'm not sure I totally follow the logic on the Tory/DUP angle.

ambro25

Oh, but to be a fly on the wall in today's May-EU27 businesses meeting

Ahead of tomorrow's debate Mrs May will be discussing the future of UK-EU trade post-Brexit in a meeting today with business leaders from Europe

<...>

During the event, which the Confederation of British Industry has helped organise, Mrs May will set out her vision of a "bold and deep economic partnership" between the UK and EU after the country leaves the bloc.

Groups represented include the BDI and BDA from Germany, Medef from France and the EU-wide BusinessEurope.

Can't hardly wait for the leaks :pac:

blanch152

listermint wrote: »

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/



POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

listermint

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

View

listermint wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

No, unless the GFA specifically precludes such a possibility the possibility of a hard border (and Brexit will always be held by the current UK government as trumping everything even if it did preclude it).

Water John

The Gove/Johnson letter, the 40 MPs wanting May out makes the UK Govn't wholly unstable. A simple question is, who speaks for the people of the UK?

Without a clear answer, things will collapse in chaos. Putin, Farage, Bannon et al will be delighted.

blanch152

listermint wrote: »

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

Anything can be argued, and there may well be an argument along it being within the spirit of the agreement and/or that it is politically desirable, but wes was calling on the Irish government to take legal action. I do not see any legal requirement to hold such a referendum.

It would also be interesting to see where advantage lies in these things and what are the crucial issues. For example, take a situation whereby a deal was possible for a hard border along the Irish Sea with special status for Northern Ireland within the EU, with Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union etc. applying to Northern Ireland but a cast-iron guarantee for unionists that the Queen would remain sovereign in everything else, and that the flag of Northern Ireland would be the British flag, no referendum for a generation, and the Irish government in order to preserve an open border signing up to such guarantees? In other words, some practical steps towards unity in exchange for the big issue of sovereignty being put on a very long finger. An FG Taoiseach might deliver that.

This could pose the most difficulty for Sinn Fein. At the end of the day, they are not particularly interested in a soft border, because they lose moneymaking opportunities and it doesn't particularly advance unity. A hard border with severe economic disruption in Northern Ireland is SF's best case for securing unity in the medium term as moderate unionists are persuaded with their pockets.

Water John

I think, no referendum for a generation, would be contrary to the GFA?

blanch152

Water John wrote: »

I think, no referendum for a generation, would be contrary to the GFA?

If there is to be a hard Border along the Irish Sea, it will require an agreement between the UK, Ireland and the EU. Such an agreement would replace parts of the GFA and could contain anything.

Water John

If SF, held their noses, and took their seats in Westminister, it would largely nullify the unique influence the DUP have ATM. That would be their greatest contribution to Irish politics.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's no more lost than the drop in house prices.

The bricks and mortar in a persons home are still the same even if those with foreign currency can buy then at a substantially discounted price compared to before the vote.

Good afternoon!

In a sense stating that currency / forex risk affects any asset held in a currency is unremarkable. It also works both ways. If someone receives payment in currencies that have strengthened to sterling it will also be beneficial. This happens all the time. Sterling was overvalued for a long time and the IMF noted this in 2015.

Another way of looking at it is if you have liabilities expressed in sterling like all mortgage holders they won't increase provided you have a decent fixed term mortgage and it won't be subject to currency risk in terms of sterling based earnings.

The vast majority of British homeowners are going to be staying in the UK. Yes, it will have an impact on moving to other countries if that's what you've decided to do.

Samaris wrote: »

I know that's snark rather than a serious suggestion, but the EU saw currency issues in advance and have put in the condition that the money is paid in euros . Sensible of them given the state of £Sterling!

Again - currency value is not the only metric of an economy. It isn't meaningful to say that if a currency loses value that it means the economy has gone to the dogs. In the case of Britain in 2017 that isn't true. It's faring incredibly well this year despite uncertainty.

The pound has strengthened in comparison to a lot of currencies including the Swiss franc, the yen and the dollar in the last year.

This doesn't mean that the US, Japan or Switzerland aren't doing well economically.

The truth is that the British economy has slowed but is still growing despite a huge amount of uncertainty. The British economy is proving itself to be remarkably resilient. I think clarity at the end of the Brexit process will be good rather than bad for Britain.

Edit: It's really encouraging to hear that working groups are in place for discussing terms with 21 countries according to Liam Fox in the Financial Times. The truth is that the UK can and will be successful outside of the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

View

blanch152 wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

Anything can be argued, and there may well be an argument along it being within the spirit of the agreement and/or that it is politically desirable, but wes was calling on the Irish government to take legal action. I do not see any legal requirement to hold such a referendum.

It would also be interesting to see where advantage lies in these things and what are the crucial issues. For example, take a situation whereby a deal was possible for a hard border along the Irish Sea with special status for Northern Ireland within the EU, with Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union etc. applying to Northern Ireland but a cast-iron guarantee for unionists that the Queen would remain sovereign in everything else, and that the flag of Northern Ireland would be the British flag, no referendum for a generation, and the Irish government in order to preserve an open border signing up to such guarantees? In other words, some practical steps towards unity in exchange for the big issue of sovereignty being put on a very long finger. An FG Taoiseach might deliver that.

This could pose the most difficulty for Sinn Fein. At the end of the day, they are not particularly interested in a soft border, because they lose moneymaking opportunities and it doesn't particularly advance unity. A hard border with severe economic disruption in Northern Ireland is SF's best case for securing unity in the medium term as moderate unionists are persuaded with their pockets.

Unionists aren’t going to support any agreement “with practical steps towards unity” anymore than the Oireachtas will support one with practical steps toward us rejoining the UK.

steddyeddy

blanch152 wrote: »

If there is to be a hard Border along the Irish Sea, it will require an agreement between the UK, Ireland and the EU. Such an agreement would replace parts of the GFA and could contain anything.

A sea border is the least likely to damage the GFA IMO. The EU already favour it.

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

A sea border is the least likely to damage the GFA IMO. The EU already favour it.

Probably true but it damages the NI economy more than a hard land border.

Brexit is such a cluster**** there is just no good solution to any of this.

Sam Russell

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

In a sense stating that currency / forex risk affects any asset held in a currency is unremarkable. It also works both ways. If someone receives payment in currencies that have strengthened to sterling it will also be beneficial. This happens all the time. Sterling was overvalued for a long time and the IMF noted this in 2015.

Another way of looking at it is if you have liabilities expressed in sterling like all mortgage holders they won't increase provided you have a decent fixed term mortgage and it won't be subject to currency risk in terms of sterling based earnings.

The vast majority of British homeowners are going to be staying in the UK. Yes, it will have an impact on moving to other countries if that's what you've decided to do.



Again - currency value is not the only metric of an economy. It isn't meaningful to say that if a currency loses value that it means the economy has gone to the dogs. In the case of Britain in 2017 that isn't true. It's faring incredibly well this year despite uncertainty.

The pound has strengthened in comparison to a lot of currencies including the Swiss franc, the yen and the dollar in the last year.

This doesn't mean that the US, Japan or Switzerland aren't doing well economically.

The truth is that the British economy has slowed but is still growing despite a huge amount of uncertainty. The British economy is proving itself to be remarkably resilient. I think clarity at the end of the Brexit process will be good rather than bad for Britain.

Edit: It's really encouraging to hear that working groups are in place for discussing terms with 21 countries according to Liam Fox in the Financial Times. The truth is that the UK can and will be successful outside of the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Relative values of a currency vs other trading currencies is not, per se, an indication of the relative strengths of a countries economy. However, neither is GDP, or exports, or balance of trade. It is when all of these are taken together that a picture emerges.

For example, when Apple transferred IP assets to Ireland, it showed up as a huge rise in GDP and cries of Leprechaun economics. Last December, there was a rise in UK exports that was hailed as a success for Brexit. It turned out to be a large repatriation of Gold that had no positive reflection on the UK GDP.

Unless the UK move on the first three items on the agenda, the future of the UK economy is in unchartered territory, and into a time of huge uncertainty. No business likes either, and tend to make contingency plans to get to safety.

You appear to be whistling as you pass the graveyard.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

Probably true but it damages the NI economy more than a hard land border.

Brexit is such a cluster**** there is just no good solution to any of this.

I'm not sure that is the case, but we shall see.

murphaph

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case, but we shall see.

I personally hope for the sea border because it's better for the RoI and we have to think of ourselves first in all this.

One would naturally hope for NI that they could over time refocus their economy on servicing the GB less and the EU more. But it will definitely be a hell of a shock to the NI economy to disconnect it from GB.

Chips Lovell

It's been discussed before. John Fitzgerald had a piece about it in the Irish Times back in August:

The Northern Ireland economy relies heavily on imported goods, three-quarters of these coming from Britain. The result is that there would be far more dislocation to the North’s internal economy from a customs border between Britain and the North than from one between the North and the Republic, as the Republic is a minority supplier to the North.

In addition, exports from the Northern Ireland economy to the EU (including Ireland) are only 40 per cent of the value of the exports going to Britain. Once again, for the North’s exporters customs-free access to the British market is far more important than access to the EU market.

Vronsky

With the stated position of the UK now clear (albeit unworkable) on the Irish border, we can now deduce their overall future trade strategy.

The UK has stated two things - NI will not diverge from the mainland UK regulatory or customs wise and that they will not build any border infrastructure. Taking them at their word and since afaik they are not allowed to discriminate wrt WTO rates for different countries they do not have an agreement with, this looks like they are going to adopt the Minford proposal - the full open economy with zero tariffs.

This would allow them to refrain from building the border infrastructure (keeping their end of the GFA) - leaving only customs posts on the Irish side, which are an Irish problem. This would be a huge issue for Ireland since smuggling would undermine the Irish membership of the customs union and single market. One food scare due to smuggling and Ireland would be suspended from the SM.

It would also destroy the rural economy of the UK - but I have a feeling they will sacrifice them anyway.

Nody

Vronsky wrote: »

This would allow them to refrain from building the border infrastructure (keeping their end of the GFA) - leaving only customs posts on the Irish side, which are an Irish problem.

Until one year in the UK government realizes how much money they lost on alcohol, tobacco and fuel due to there being no taxes paid on the smuggled products coming over from NI without any border controls what so ever stopping them. You'd be talking easily six if not seven figures for a truck of cheap smokes imported lost due to taxes (rough estimation of 500.000 cigarettes per pallet, 24 pallets with an average tax of £6.73 per pack of 20 as per 2014 and you'd look at just over £4 million lost per truck load).

ancapailldorcha

Looks like Parliament is getting the final say on the Brexit deal:

BBC wrote:

Parliament will get a vote on the final Brexit deal before the country leaves EU, minister David Davis has told MPs.

He said the terms of the UK's exit, including any transition deal and agreement on citizen rights, would have to become law via new legislation.

And he said MPs would have the opportunity to reject or amend such legislation, saying "the agreement will only hold if Parliament approves it".

The concession comes as MPs prepare to debate key Brexit legislation.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like Parliament is getting the final say on the Brexit deal:

Just like the demands for the research papers to be published and other Brexit matters, they're afraid to put anything to a vote. It's another vain attempt to pacify Tory rebels.

Nody

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Looks like Parliament is getting the final say on the Brexit deal:

Talk about sheep to the slaughter house... "Hey guys here's the latest deal. You can reject it and we leave on no terms at all or you for it and either way you'll be held responsible for **** that comes afterwards."

This vote is the definition of blame shifting from the government to them as individuals in being complicit in a very bad outcome (either way the vote falls) and they take it all in as a great success...

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

Talk about sheep to the slaughter house... "Hey guys here's the latest deal. You can reject it and we leave on no terms at all or you for it and either way you'll be held responsible for **** that comes afterwards."

This vote is the definition of blame shifting from the government to them as individuals in being complicit in a very bad outcome (either way the vote falls) and they take it all in as a great success...

That's one interpretation. Surviving for more than a year is a tall order for the current government when they can even deal with a racist like Johnson and various sexual predators without the risk of complete collapse.

LeinsterDub

Labour’s Hilary Benn, the chair of the Brexit committee, says it is increasingly clear there is a fundamental contradiction between wanting to leave the customs union and not having a border in Northern Ireland.

Davis says there are a range of possible outcomes. If the government achieves its goal of having tariff-free, friction-free trade with Europe, any customs deal would be very light touch.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/13/boris-johnson-should-resign-if-british-womans-jail-term-in-iran-gets-extended-says-labour-mp-politics-live

Seriously? This contradiction is only becoming apparent to UK politicians now? Perhaps they should read this thread were this has been called out numerous times. The level of self delusional is criminal at this stage.

A Little Pony

Irrelevant as the EU states will never vote for a deal anyway. This whole thing is a complete and utter waste of time.

wes

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

DUP in the government. Pretty clear one if you ask me.

blanch152 wrote: »

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Your technically right, but May wants out of any European courts as part of Brexit. So there pretty much stating they want to break an important part of the agreement.

blanch152 wrote: »

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

Fair enough, but I think there is a potential case there.

Professor Moriarty

Interestingly, Davis, in reply to Soubry, confirmed that a no-deal Brexit would not be put before parliament.

A Little Pony

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Nody

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, Davis, in reply to Soubry, confirmed that a no-deal Brexit would not be put before parliament.

Beyond the fact any vote on a final deal is a sham; let's say they would put it up for a vote for a "no deal" what would you expect to be the outcome? Government told to go back and get a deal somehow with a month to go after failing for two years? Magically twist EU's arm? Even if UK would somehow decide to give up on every point how is it suppose to be achieved in the time left?

The simple fact they even have a vote is silly. Let's play the three scenarios possible:

1) No deal - No vote
2) Deal - Vote yes in parliament and implemented (now all who voted yes are sharing the blame for the outcome)
3) Deal - Vote no in parliament and UK ends up with "no deal" (and all who voted no now share the blame for the outcome)

No matter the scenario the parliament vote is meaningless because no matter the outcome they can't do anything about the outcome except making it worse. The vote that actually mattered was the trigger for article 50; not the vote at the end when it's a rubber stamp exercise.

Water John

The decision to put a final deal to Parliament is not of any long thinking policy. It's about surviving until next week. That is about the vision of this present cabinet.

solodeogloria

A Little Pony wrote: »

That is because a deal is as likely as Liverpool winning the league this year, zero.

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.


Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It's been discussed before. John Fitzgerald had a piece about it in the Irish Times back in August:

But a sea border is certainly better for the republic. We're already going to suffer because of Brexit. Better to apply pressure that will work out better for us. Northern Ireland's economy is 70% services. It won't survive being out of the single market and it certainly won't grow during Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Beyond the fact any vote on a final deal is a sham; let's say they would put it up for a vote for a "no deal" what would you expect to be the outcome? Government told to go back and get a deal somehow with a month to go after failing for two years? Magically twist EU's arm? Even if UK would somehow decide to give up on every point how is it suppose to be achieved in the time left?

The simple fact they even have a vote is silly. Let's play the three scenarios possible:

1) No deal - No vote
2) Deal - Vote yes in parliament and implemented (now all who voted yes are sharing the blame for the outcome)
3) Deal - Vote no in parliament and UK ends up with "no deal" (and all who voted no now share the blame for the outcome)

No matter the scenario the parliament vote is meaningless because no matter the outcome they can't do anything about the outcome except making it worse. The vote that actually mattered was the trigger for article 50; not the vote at the end when it's a rubber stamp exercise.

In your deal scenarios 2 and 3, many politicians would be highly motivated to ensure they were on the losing side. Of course, if many polticians vote for what they think will be the losing side then the law of unintended consequences might enter the equation.

Sam Russell

Is there any official information as to what is exported or imported between NI and GB?

How much of that would not be available through shipping via Ireland? For example, how much of what Tesco import into NI is the same as the goods imported into the republic? Would it make any difference if NI was supplied from a warehouse in Naas rather than one in Manchester if it is the same product? Aldi and Lidl already do this.

How much non-agricultural product is exported from NI to anywhere and what percentage ? I know about Bombardier and Wright buses but what else is there of any consequence?

The UK subsidy for NI is about 60% of their GDP - will that be affected by Brexit? Much of the rest comes as a gift from the EU in the form of regional funds and CAP farm payments - how much of that will be paid by the UK Gov?

It is worth noting that the UK subsidy to NI is greater than their net payments to the EU.

steddyeddy

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/13/boris-johnson-should-resign-if-british-womans-jail-term-in-iran-gets-extended-says-labour-mp-politics-live

Seriously? This contradiction is only becoming apparent to UK politicians now? Perhaps they should read this thread were this has been called out numerous times. The level of self delusional is criminal at this stage.

I used to think the Tories were economically conservative. I.E they didn't do anything mad with the economy. The fact that they're leaving a trading zone without a safety net or knowledge leads me to think otherwise.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I'm a touch more optimistic than you. If I was to draw a line with extremes I'd probably have something like this.

Staying in the EU by the back door|Ideal scenario - regaining control and maintaining trade with the EU|No deal
Terrible outcome, no benefit on today. A loss of decision making over regulations. Paying fees. Free movement continuing. No point in having left the EU. Government can honour basically nothing from the referendum. Less risk for basically no improvement on current terms. |Allows the Government to be faithful to electorate. Controls on immigration can be put in place. A good deal with the both parties to import a substantial amount of goods and potentially services in and out without tariffs and potentially reduced non-tariff barriers. Government can expand trade with other countries. Much much harder work than no deal or EU-by-the-backdoor. Financial settlement will need to be paid but not indefinitely. Honours the referendum campaign. | Government can trade freely with other countries but faces tariffs and non-tariff barriers in terms of goods and services. Controls on immigration can be out in place. Impact on existing useful areas of cooperation gone overnight. This isn't desirable.


Given that structure of how I see it the course of travel my hope is a harder path. It's at risk of the Prime Minister caving in and not really delivering Brexit by giving a terrible deal, it's also at risk of harder core people saying chuck in the towel and go home. But let's be honest this isn't honouring the vote either.

If there is a deal the UK needs to take back real tangible control from the EU. The alternative is a bad deal. I agree broadly that a deal should be aimed for.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think any of these 3 options are possible.

1. Staying in the UK by the back door - my understanding is all 27 member states would have to vote yes for the UK to stay. Thants not going to happen. Anything else is a deal which is below as item 4.

2. Leaving and staying ??? - do you think the UK can leave and stay in the single market, thats what I think this option is saying. This is never going to happen, again see option 4

3. Hard brexit - is this also workable, the UK has ZERO trade deals with ANY country. It will have to setup deals, how long do you think that will take ? Also doesn't WTO only cover goods, I don't think it covers services, what happens to the UK'f financial service sector, how long can it wait for deals with countries, 7 to 8 years ?

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

steddyeddy

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is there any official information as to what is exported or imported between NI and GB?

How much of that would not be available through shipping via Ireland? For example, how much of what Tesco import into NI is the same as the goods imported into the republic? Would it make any difference if NI was supplied from a warehouse in Naas rather than one in Manchester if it is the same product? Aldi and Lidl already do this.

How much non-agricultural product is exported from NI to anywhere and what percentage ? I know about Bombardier and Wright buses but what else is there of any consequence?

The UK subsidy for NI is about 60% of their GDP - will that be affected by Brexit? Much of the rest comes as a gift from the EU in the form of regional funds and CAP farm payments - how much of that will be paid by the UK Gov?

It is worth noting that the UK subsidy to NI is greater than their net payments to the EU.

Indeed. I wonder how NI out of the single market can be better than NI in the single market. The UK will also be less likely to be able to afford the subsidy to Northern Ireland given the fact that it will doubtlessly need to be increased as Brexit damages the NI economy.

Sam Russell

Gerry T wrote: »

I don't think any of these 3 options are possible.

1. Staying in the UK by the back door - my understanding is all 27 member states would have to vote yes for the UK to stay. Thants not going to happen. Anything else is a deal which is below as item 4.

2. Leaving and staying ??? - do you think the UK can leave and stay in the single market, thats what I think this option is saying. This is never going to happen, again see option 4

3. Hard brexit - is this also workable, the UK has ZERO trade deals with ANY country. It will have to setup deals, how long do you think that will take ? Also doesn't WTO only cover goods, I don't think it covers services, what happens to the UK'f financial service sector, how long can it wait for deals with countries, 7 to 8 years ?

4. Hard brexit - it's now looking like the most likely option, unless an extension is given but I doubt all 27 member states would agree. SO under this hard brexit the UK will renege on its financial commitments, that just my opinion. No trade deal and the start of the collapse of the UK service sector, mass leave of multinations bar the low skill like T-shirt manufacturing. Within 1yr a new govt, followed by a new referendum, followed by the UK applying for EU membership, ditching of Stg.

The UK are finding difficulties with all three of the prerequisites for a deal.

1. They want the EU to whistle for the money they have previously committed to pay - even as late as the Florence speech.

2. They have rowed back from commitments made re EU citizen's rights.

3. They have made no proposals for the NI border other than magic beans.

If they want to reverse the Brexit situation, the the EU would demand they pay the cost of the Brexit negotiations (about €1bn) plus they forget about the rebate they currently enjoy, and that they join the Euro, plus revoke ever being able to invoke article 50 again.

If they fail to agree the first three requirements, then a hard Brexit it is, with no airplanes, queues of lorries from Dover to London, and all car manufacturing stopping due to parts being stuck in Calais, and City of London going on a three day week plus a few unforeseen disasters, like the NHS collapsing due to staff shortages.

Doomed, I say. Doomed.

Water John

I think one might need to go back in history to see the effects of the Corn Laws removal to, in some way measure the impact of a Hard Brexit on UK and NI farming, disastrous.