Brexit discussion thread II

kowtow

Nody wrote: »

As per article UK will no longer be allowed to participate in any security discussions, conferences etc. UK will become a third party country like USA, Russia or Turkey in that sense. Exactly as UK wants it to be except of course they want to be allowed to pick the raising out of the cake and eat 'em.

Presumably there is significant co-operation between intelligence services on a bilateral basis including the UK? I can't imagine that is all done through the EU. Is that the plan for the future?

The European Arrest Warrant has always had a mixed reaction in the UK in any event as it amounts to extradition on very limited evidence, much lower than the usual tests, and also a significant amount of detention overseas in circumstances where bail would be usual in the UK. I think I'm right in saying that the UK opted out of the EAW package and then opted back in to specific measures after Lisbon?

They'll have to fall back on interpol I suppose.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

They'll have to fall back on interpol I suppose.

UK will be kicked out of interpol as well, EU/EEA membership requirement for that.

Really Interested

kowtow wrote: »

Presumably there is significant co-operation between intelligence services on a bilateral basis including the UK? I can't imagine that is all done through the EU. Is that the plan for the future?

The European Arrest Warrant has always had a mixed reaction in the UK in any event as it amounts to extradition on very limited evidence, much lower than the usual tests, and also a significant amount of detention overseas in circumstances where bail would be usual in the UK. I think I'm right in saying that the UK opted out of the EAW package and then opted back in to specific measures after Lisbon?

They'll have to fall back on interpol I suppose.

The UK like Ireland was able and did opt out of certain issue around the EAW, funny they ignored the main opt-out, to order the removal of Assange.


Can you set out clearly how EAW differs from Extradition as enacted in the UK?

Really Interested

Nody wrote: »

UK will be kicked out of interpol as well, EU/EEA membership requirement for that.

So there are 192 countries in the EU?

At INTERPOL today, we have a global membership of 192 countries. Each country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB), staffed by national law enforcement officers. It forms the link with INTERPOL's global network, enabling member countries to work together on cross-border investigations. NCBs are increasingly involved in shaping the Organization's direction.

ThisRegard

Nody wrote: »

UK will be kicked out of interpol as well, EU/EEA membership requirement for that.

Europol?

Nody

Really Interested wrote: »

So there are 192 countries in the EU?

At INTERPOL today, we have a global membership of 192 countries. Each country maintains a National Central Bureau (NCB), staffed by national law enforcement officers. It forms the link with INTERPOL's global network, enabling member countries to work together on cross-border investigations. NCBs are increasingly involved in shaping the Organization's direction.

Sorry mixed up with the more relevant Europol which has more impact on the day to day life in Europe.

demfad

kowtow wrote: »

I think we've been around and around that enough times to understand the arguments. It's worth adding that Switzerland does not allow Freedom of movement in quite the same way as it is understood in Dublin or indeed London. There is a national preference system in many occupations, it is not - with certain exceptions - possible for immigrants to buy real estate, and there are very well enforced provisions ensuring that immigrants have (and continue to have) the means to support themselves. I am aware that some of these provisions have been available to, but not used by the UK. As with the current UK / Brexit position there is a determined standoff between CH and EU on any question of the ECJ having jurisdiction.

CH passed a referendum on immigration. The EU told them if they made it law they were in breach of FOM and would be out. They relented. If this is not the case please provide the substantiation. CH obeys FOM.

Indeed they do. But the issue here is a more fundamental one. Rights are rights only within a given jurisdiction. There is no problem granting rights, provided that all citizens rights within a jurisdiction are substantially equal, but the enforcement of those rights cannot take place anywhere other than the courts of the jurisdiction which grants and maintains them. It might be possible to enshrine the continuation of rights in a bilateral treaty - indeed it happens all the time - but the citizen is not party to the treaty. He must rely on the country he lives adhering to the treaty, and look to it's proper courts for remedy. If that is not sufficient then (unless he has diplomatic immunity) he must place himself within the jurisdiction of a court which suits him better.

The court would have to be the ECJ as that is the court for EU citizens. No practical or legal reason to waste money on a new court.
If the UK bluffs about red lines etc then they can always go down the 'no-deal' route. After all it is better than a bad deal right?

kowtow

Really Interested wrote: »

The UK like Ireland was able and did opt out of certain issue around the EAW, funny they ignored the main opt-out, to order the removal of Assange.


Can you set out clearly how EAW differs from Extradition as enacted in the UK?

I think they vary from country to country.

But from my limited knowledge the big difference with the EAW is that in most extradition arrangements the surrendering country can/will refuse to extradite if the alleged offence would not have amounted to a sufficiently serious offence in their own jurisdiction. I think it's also possible that there is little opportunity for the defendant to mount a defence prior to extradition perhaps to establish that he or she is being charged with the wrong offence. Certainly there have been cases reported of youngsters extradited and then locked up for several months overseas awaiting trial for what some might see as non-custodial offences.

kowtow

demfad wrote: »

CH passed a referendum on immigration. The EU told them if they made it law they were in breach of FOM and would be out. They relented. If this is not the case please provide the substantiation. CH obeys FOM.

When I lived there they still had a quota system for a limited number of EU countries only, since then there was a referendum and the referendum conflicts with EU law. As far as I am aware the arrangements outlined in my post above are the position they have reached along with the EU for a framework agreement to regularize things.

The court would have to be the ECJ as that is the court for EU citizens. No practical or legal reason to waste money on a new court.
If the UK bluffs about red lines etc then they can always go down the 'no-deal' route. After all it is better than a bad deal right?

It is only the court for EU citizens in EU countries. If the EU court can have jurisdiction over an EU citizen in a non-eu country then why should it's writ not run in Dubai, or Australia, or the US?

Edit: I'm not sure if I am being obtuse on this ECJ point or if others don't see the important, but imagine the position if upon gaining independence in 1949 and implementing the Common Travel area, the UK had required that English citizens resident in Ireland have their rights adjudicated by courts in London with the decisions binding on Dublin?

Really Interested

kowtow wrote: »

I think they vary from country to country.

But from my limited knowledge the big difference with the EAW is that in most extradition arrangements the surrendering country can/will refuse to extradite if the alleged offence would not have amounted to a sufficiently serious offence in their own jurisdiction. I think it's also possible that there is little opportunity for the defendant to mount a defence prior to extradition perhaps to establish that he or she is being charged with the wrong offence. Certainly there have been cases reported of youngsters extradited and then locked up for several months overseas awaiting trial for what some might see as non-custodial offences.

There is no ability to mount a defence in ordinary extradition. The EAW was supposed to be a speedy way of getting criminals to face justice in the country that the crime was committed. But the UK or Irish Court must under the EAW legislation take into account the ECHR and the Charter, as well as in Ireland the Constitution.

37.—(1) A person shall not be surrendered under this Act if—

(a) his or her surrender would be incompatible with the State's obligations under—

(i) the Convention, or

(ii) the Protocols to the Convention,

(b) his or her surrender would constitute a contravention of any provision of the Constitution (other than for the reason that the offence specified in the European arrest warrant is an offence to which section 38 (1)(b) applies),

(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(i) the European arrest warrant was issued in respect of the person for the purposes of facilitating his or her prosecution or punishment in the issuing state for reasons connected with his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinion or sexual orientation, or

(ii) in the prosecution or punishment of the person in the issuing state, he or she will be treated less favourably than a person who—

(I) is not his or her sex, race, religion, nationality or ethnic origin,

(II) does not hold the same political opinions as him or her,

(III) speaks a different language than he or she does, or

(IV) does not have the same sexual orientation as he or she does,

or

(iii) were the person to be surrendered to the issuing state—

(I) he or she would be sentenced to death, or a death sentence imposed on him or her would be carried out, or

(II) he or she would be tortured or subjected to other inhuman or degrading treatment.

(2) In this section—

“Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms done at Rome on the 4th day of November, 1950, as amended by Protocol No. 11 done at Strasbourg on the 11th day of May, 1994; and

“Protocols to the Convention” means the following protocols to the Convention, construed in accordance with Articles 16 to 18 of the Convention:

(a) the Protocol to the Convention done at Paris on the 20th day of March, 1952;

(b) Protocol No. 4 to the Convention securing certain rights and freedoms other than those already included in the Convention and in the First Protocol thereto done at Strasbourg on the 16th day of September, 1963;

(c) Protocol No. 6 to the Convention concerning the abolition of the death penalty done at Strasbourg on the 28th day of April, 1983;

(d) Protocol No. 7 to the Convention done at Strasbourg on the 22nd day of November, 1984.

This section only applies to serious offences.

ambro25

blanch152 wrote: »

demfad wrote: »

Not really. EP has veto on any trade deal so they cannot be easily dismissed by the EC or the UK.

That veto is on the final trade deal, not on whether we start negotiations. A long way away.

No, the first veto is on the withdrawal agreement. That which is currently being negotiated, and which may or may not include provisions about a post-Brexit transition (to e.g. 2021).

The trade deal comes later (after 2019). And the European Parliament will get a (second) veto on that one too.

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

When I lived there they still had a quota system for a limited number of EU countries only, since then there was a referendum and the referendum conflicts with EU law. As far as I am aware the arrangements outlined in my post above are the position they have reached along with the EU for a framework agreement to regularize things.

They don't have any quotas nor restrictions on foreign workers:

A quarter of Switzerland’s population – about 2 million people – are foreigners, including 1.4 million EU citizens. The plan would encourage employers to give them and local Swiss nationals priority for job openings, and to advertise vacancies at local job centres before recruiting from abroad, in particular economic sectors if net immigration went above average levels in other European countries.

Crucially, the plan does not include any fixed limits to EU immigration, and stipulates that specific EU approval would have to be obtained before any such curbs could be imposed.

And a company can still refuse a Swiss person without any reason given; only requirement is to have advertised the job locally before recruiting internationally.

Sand

Nody wrote: »

I guess May will regret those words for ever but Brexit means Brexit...

Why does it matter? well European arrest warrants, searching the Europol DBs for criminals etc. which May thought she'd be allowed to keep after leaving EU will all now be lost to the UK; but hey that's because UK will be sovereign again and that's all that matters. Who wants to capture paedophiles or murderers fleeing to Europe after all?

I think Brexiteers have been very quick to identify that the EU pools sovereignty, but they are very slow to grasp why its done. You cant have the single market, or the EAW or really meaningful defence and security co-operation without the foundation of a common regulation, enforced under a common institution. Regulatory equivalence or mutual recognition isnt enough - its the common enforcement that develops the trust. This talk they had that they could somehow replicate the benefits of EU membership while outside the EU was absolute fantasy.

Britain ought to be able to sign an (inferior) extradition agreement with the EU as a third party (like the US), but I think its going to be impossible to grant the British access to EU databases when they are outside enforcement of regulations and laws on the use of those databases. EU defence co-ordination too will be easier if done under a common regulatory framework, as common enforcement of those regulations will permit a level of trust that isnt possible in NATO alone. I cant see the EU ever permitting the UK to sabotage whatever progress can be made by giving it any meaningful access to such co-ordination.

Interestingly, the Guardian is reporting that the Barnier speech in Berlin caused huge upset in the British government: apparently he described Brexit as a selfish decision, abandoning Europe when solidarity in the face of terrorism was necessary. This apparently really wound up the British.

Given some of the patronising, aggressive and sometimes plain ignorant views being aired by the likes of BoJo and friends, I found it very ironic that they would be so thin skinned.

J Mysterio

I hope they are upset. I am beginning to genuinely loathe that whole cabal of fraudsters, con artists and crooks. May, Johnson, Davis, Gove etc. These people aren't even people, they are caricatures.

blackcard

So Britian looks after its own interests by voting for Brexit with little or no consideration for the economic, social and political impact on Ireland which are considerable. Yet when Ireland looks after its own interests by trying to mitigate the effects of a hard border, we are told by the Tory press to shut our gob and told by Arlene to mind our own business. Seriously?

An Ciarraioch

A Border deal in sight, according to the Guardian, but all rather nebulous within the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-negotiators-believe-end-irish-border-impasse-near

flaneur

@Blackcard : Hardly surprising given the type of politics both the current crop of Tories and DUP engage in.

Samaris

blackcard wrote: »

So Britian looks after its own interests by voting for Brexit with little or no consideration for the economic, social and political impact on Ireland which are considerable. Yet when Ireland looks after its own interests by trying to mitigate the effects of a hard border, we are told by the Tory press to shut our gob and told by Arlene to mind our own business. Seriously?

Yup, that's pretty much it exactly. Also, it may be because we lost (something). Might be the rugby. Harsh if it's the rugby.

Leonard Hofstadter

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

A Border deal in sight, according to the Guardian, but all rather nebulous within the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/29/brexit-negotiators-believe-end-irish-border-impasse-near

This is obviously great news. We've no reason to block progress once the border is resolved.

The only way this is going to be possible though is for there to be no regulatory divergence - which of course means it won't be possible for the UK to sign a FTA with the US (since the US wants to export chlorinated chicken which obviously is not permitted in EU markets) or lower standards elsewhere - which kind of negates the whole 'advantage' of Brexit if you're of the pro-Brexit persuasion.

blackcard

Ian Paisley Jnr. "Britain should punish Ireland by making bilateral talks about fishing long and painful. I think our neighbour has acted disgracefully. If her Majesty's government isn't prepared for diplomatic reasons to say it publicly, I hope you are starting to shake their cage internally and privately in these negotiations. A lot of people ate really exasperated with the amateurishness of the Irish Government"
This really beggars belief

FrancieBrady

:rolleyes:

blackcard wrote: »

Ian Paisley Jnr. "Britain should punish Ireland by making bilateral talks about fishing long and painful. I think our neighbour has acted disgracefully. If her Majesty's government isn't prepared for diplomatic reasons to say it publicly, I hope you are starting to shake their cage internally and privately in these negotiations. A lot of people ate really exasperated with the amateurishness of the Irish Government"
This really beggars belief

Have you a link to that? What specific thing was he responding to?

Samaris

blackcard wrote: »

Ian Paisley Jnr. "Britain should punish Ireland by making bilateral talks about fishing long and painful. I think our neighbour has acted disgracefully. If her Majesty's government isn't prepared for diplomatic reasons to say it publicly, I hope you are starting to shake their cage internally and privately in these negotiations. A lot of people ate really exasperated with the amateurishness of the Irish Government"
This really beggars belief

It does and yet..

I think we're discovering what it's been like in America for the past year or so. Now we're getting the insane troll logic, divisive rhetoric, posturing and empty threats (also insulting incompetence) while also facing what could end up in disaster for our country.

Although it is also Ian Paisley Jnr.

breatheme

Now, THAT is beyond the pale.
Anyway, I read the article, it still doesn't state what the deal is/would be... so I hope to read about it soon.

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

Or as I shall now refer to it as "The Athlone Wall".

To be fair it's very close to the path of the Esker Riada that used to split the country in two.

flaneur

Full quote is in the Irish News: http://www.irishnews.com/news/brexit/2017/11/29/news/ian-paisley-jnr-uk-should-make-life-hard-for-the-south-in-response-to-disgraceful-behaviour-1199788/

Well, if he wants to go that way. I suppose a slow and painful EU market access discussion is also a distinct possibility.

Theresa May really should be hanging her head in shame for bringing this kind of politics into the British Government. It's undoing a lot of Irish and EU goodwill and relations built over decades and for what?

J Mysterio

I dont see how it can be resolved other than by making NI some sort of special economic zone.

ThisRegard

The border issue is being discussed on Newsnight on BBC 2 just now and the impediment it's becoming.

Kermit.de.frog

Politico saying tonight they have Dublin's 5 red lines...

https://www.politico.eu/article/dublins-5-brexit-demands-show-path-to-sufficient-progress/

flaneur

It would have been resolved if it were just the Tories in power, but since it's the Tories supported by the DUP any realistic solution like making NI a special economic zone is likely to result in the DUP collapsing the British government.

If I were May, I think I would just push it to the bring of that and if Arleen pulls the plug, blame the DUP on stopping Brexit and let Corbyn clean up.

J Mysterio

ThisRegard wrote: »

The border issue is being discussed on Newsnight on BBC 2 just now and the impediment it's becoming.

Wtf is this guy talking about. Unbelievable. That was an apalling newspiece. Creed was rightly contemptious. The questions were absurd. "Would a large parking lot on the border be acceptable to you?" Eh... what?

kowtow

If those five demands are accurate, it's eminently doable. The wording is deliberately sufficiently open to allow real and functional progress during phase two. At that point, with trade also on the table, Ireland will be more easily persuaded to accept a practical solution because clearly a successful trade deal is very much in our interests. If the inflamatory rhetoric on both sides can be dialled down then the kind of creative partnership which I hoped for up the thread is still possible.

The "no regulatory divergence on EU matters" (from memory) is going to cause something of a talking point.

I think if that article is anything to go by that we can say that Ireland has made it's point very effectively, without - so far - throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Capt'n Midnight

Call me Al wrote: »

Indeed.. and if there's a Norway style approach then there are further payments for access to the single market?

yes

Norway pays the same per capita as the UK. They give up some control but they regain control on some issues.

The UK isn't a major exporter of raw materials or food and has already surrendered fishing rights after Brexit. So no benefit in the UK going for that deal.

Kermit.de.frog

kowtow wrote: »

The "no regulatory divergence on EU matters" (from memory) is going to cause something of a talking point.

Code for the north remaining in the customs union. They pretend not the case.

steddyeddy

I watched Newsnight with disbelief. Apparantly the UK government are accusing the Irish government of jeopardising the Good Friday agreement for representing nationalists in the North. I'll say that again. The Tory/DUP think that the government are too close to Northern Irish parties. I have to say that the UK government, media and politicians have behaved absolutely despicable during this whole thing. I've been treated well in England but this will foster a whole new wave of resentment against Britain in Ireland.

ThisRegard

steddyeddy wrote: »

I watched Newsnight with disbelief. Apparantly the UK government are accusing the Irish government of jeopardising the Good Friday agreement for representing nationalists in the North. I'll say that again. The Tory/DUP think that the government are too close to Northern Irish parties

I don't think they were saying that, they were implying that the Irish government were only considering the nationalist side when it comes to the border issue when the Good Friday agreement encompasses more than that.

J Mysterio

That Newsnight coverage was shocking. Completey ignorant of the facts. The whole thing was so blase aswell, which was infuriating.

I'm getting very annoyed with the phrase 'the Irish question' also. Seems to hark back to the good ol colonial days or something. It's very patronising.

I'm starting to feel pretty pretty outraged that life in this country is going to change as a result of this Brexit car crash. And we might find out in the next few days, it's hard to believe.

It's like that movie Idiocracy... Is everyone getting progressively more stupid? Trump, Brexit...

steddyeddy

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think they were saying that, they were implying that the Irish government were only considering the nationalist side when it comes to the border issue when the Good Friday agreement encompasses more than that.

Disagree. They mentioned the Irish gov not following the GFA. Despite the fact that all I see in England is Arelene and unionists claiming they represent NI.

Kermit.de.frog

The Times reporting tonight that the deal will involve customs convergence between north and south.




In other words...the EU customs union for slow learners.

ThisRegard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Disagree. They mentioned the Irish gov not following the GFA. Despite the fact that all I see in England is Arelene and unionists claiming they represent NI.

I rewound, they said that as part of the GFA both sides must be considered but they're not looking at it from the unionists point of view as they say the majority wanted Brexit.

Water John

CU in the UK mirroring the CU in the EU. The Turkish solution.

But Brexiteers can claim they are not in the CU of the EU!!!

steddyeddy

ThisRegard wrote: »

I rewound, they said that as part of the GFQ both sides must be considered but they're not looking at it from the unionists point of view as they say the majority wanted Brexit.

Same. They're accusing the Irish of not respecting the GFA when they're in bed with the DUP. They don't care about peace. Only unionism and Brexit.

steddyeddy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Times reporting tonight that the deal will involve customs convergence between north and south.




In other words...the EU customs union for slow learners.

How will the DUP take that?

steddyeddy

Water John wrote: »

CU in the UK mirroring the CU in the EU. The Turkish solution.

But Brexiteers can claim they are not in the CU of the EU!!!

This won't mean single market entry though If the North is to survive it will need to stay in the single market.

Water John

This will not be specific to NI so the DUP will be fine with it.

That looks like what will happen. But basically we all know, like the Brexit bill of €50 + Bn is the UK caving in e very time. Just don't say it out loud.

ThisRegard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Same. They're accusing the Irish of not respecting the GFA when they're in bed with the DUP. They don't care about peace. Only unionism and Brexit.

Yeah, but that's pretty far removed from claiming the Irish government are jeopardising the GFA.

J Mysterio

ThisRegard wrote: »

I rewound, they said that as part of the GFA both sides must be considered but they're not looking at it from the unionists point of view as they say the majority wanted Brexit.

They actually did make that point, which was unbelievable. They said 'the majority of Unionists voted leave'. Now in the first place i'm not sure that's true, but anyway, NI voted Remain over all, so **** argument.

But, of course, they were missing the point entirely. That we are concerned about this island in a wholesome way, and we want progress to continue. The tone of the segment implied that we were being troublesome, or over reaching, or impetuous somehow. They were trying to frame the argument of Ireland + Nationalists VS Britain + Unionists, and pitch that we had some unreasonable demands.

steddyeddy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Yeah, but that's pretty far removed from claiming the Irish government are jeopardising the GFA.

Sorry but it's not. That's the long and short of what they're accussing the gov of. Anyway we can agree to disagree.

steddyeddy

J Mysterio wrote: »

They actually did make that point, which was unbelievable. They said 'the majority of Unionists voted leave'. Now in the first place i'm not sure that's true, but anyway, NI voted Remain over all, so **** argument.

But, of course, they were missing the point entirely. That we are concerned about this island in a wholesome way, and we want progress to continue. The tone of the segment implied that we were being troublesome, or over reaching, or impetuous somehow. They were trying to frame the argument of Ireland + Nationalists VS Britain + Unionists, and pitch that we had some unreasonable demands.

That's it exactly. I thought it was frankly disgusting rethoric from Tories/DUP who couldn't give a monkeys for the peace process. Especially when you consider the fact that the DUP were against the GFA.

Kermit.de.frog

In the Times apparently it's on the table...

A possible border deal based on devolution of powers to Northern Ireland to ensure regulatory convergence with the Republic, and thus the EU.

Anthracite

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In the Times apparently it's on the table...

If it comes to that, how clever a move was it for the DUP to back Brexit?