Brexit discussion thread II

Infini

solodeogloria wrote: »

I agree that there were a number of claims that simply shouldn't have been made by Brexit. The bus claim should have been much clearer to say something like the money that comes back from Brussels should be used for priorities like the NHS. I also agree that some of the pamphlets regarding Turkey's borders with Syria and Iraq weren't helpful. The Leave campaign did make a broad case for taking back control of borders, laws, money and trade policy.

The broad case made was on desires and wishes and not on facts. They promised moneys with no understanding of what they get back in return. They then make promises about how they'll get great trade deals etc and yet everything they "promise" is not turning out to be that when reality sets in. They say lets save 350m and use it on the NHS but are now potentially paying billions in leaving bills to meet their previous commitments. They're giving up their veto that would allow them to stop changes that would be to their detriment. Their promises are coming to naught as basically the EU has all the cards and they have little to nothing so weak is their position.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that we also received rather extreme prophecies of doom from the remain campaign that didn't come to pass. We didn't see a property crash. We didn't see a recession in 2017 and we probably won't see it at all. George Osborne encouraged his mates from all over to prophecy the apocalypse both in the long term and in the immediate aftermath of the referendum. He was wrong. I don't believe the melodramatic prophecies of "running off a cliff" for this reason. What we've seen is a lot more tame. Uncertainty has led to subdued economic growth. As clarity is given the signs indicate growth and not decline. I'm under thirty and I just want to get on with Brexit. I don't know what your definition of young is.

The problem is that while it hasnt been extreme as such this is essentially a slow motion crash. It could be more described as putting the country in an acid vat. It doesnt burn the place immediately but its corrosive and wears the country down over time. They have growth thats slower than JAPAN because of Brexit for crying out loud and that country was stuck in stagnation for a decade. Everyone else has higher growth. They promised everything would be great if they leave the EU but instead its coming to nothing but disadvantages politically and economically. The only reason thing's arent worse is because the country hasnt left the EU yet. it's when the actual conditions on the ground hit like trade tariffs going up when things go south quickly. If May gets nothing in December for example you can have buisnesses activating contingency plans because they cant afford to wait and then thats when you see more serious damage emerge. What happens for example if she has to agree to these things and basically Brexit shapes up to be a vastly inferior deal than just staying? What if there's no deal at all because they either refuse to compromise in the end or the brexiteers throw their toys out of the pram because they get nothing they like?

solodeogloria wrote: »

On the DUP: Firstly you can't blame them for taking advantage of Westminster arithmetic. Secondly, you can't really blame them for highlighting legitimate concerns that unionists have about a sea border undermining the integrity of the union. You might disagree with unionism but this doesn't mean that their position is illegitimate. David Trimble (from the more moderate UUP) has an article in The Spectator highlighting his concerns. The problem of the 2017 election for Northern Ireland in terms of full balance are twofold. Firstly Sinn Féin don't sit and as a result can't affect what occurs in parliament. Secondly Sinn Féin has taken support away from more moderate nationalists in the form of the SDLP. Northern Ireland is unhelpfully polarised and quite frankly I don't fully get the point of abstentionism on the part of Sinn Féin in any case.

The DUP are oppertunists plain and simple. They're as bad as UKIP imo. SF aint the best either but to be honest they even disliked the EU and opposed referendums for years but they're not fools they know themselves that leaving is actually risking far more problems than it solves. I do agree that not sitting in Westminster isnt helping them either but that was their official position due to the oath to the queen I believe. I dont hate the DUP cos of being unionists but rather their willingness to happily throw the majority of their state under the brexit bus for their political and ideological gains rather than practial and economic ones. I also dislike Arlene because she was the one in charge of that scheme that cost their own taxpayers money but wouldnt even temporarily step aside. Basically disowned the problem she was in charge of. They also want a land border rather than a sea border ignoring the fact that its neither economically sound or the fact its impractical as well. Its alot easier to monitor the ports than it is to monitor a long winding border. They forget that its not a united ireland that primarily Ireland wants a sea border but practical ones because of the porous nature of the ONLY land border the UK has with the EU not to mention the GFA. Ironically the very strategy they're pursing might END unionism or result in a united ireland in the long term.

Also have to laugh that some of these brexiteer think they can treat Ireland like they still run the place and realise theyre not talking to just Ireland but our 26 other friends as well.

J Mysterio

Sinn Fein have been curiously quiet.

Anthracite

J Mysterio wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been curiously quiet.

Hard to see that as anything other than a positive. It's likely anything they say - anything - would be held up as an outrage to Unionism and Britishness in general.

Infini

J Mysterio wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been curiously quiet.

They could easily be waiting in the long grass as well. I mean why make a case for a United Ireland when the DUP can make a complete mess and make a case for them by simply saying a UI would be an advantage not just to the economy but also the Former Unionist's in such a scenario would have a larger influence in the Dail than Westminster. Gerry retiring too so they kinda busy on that.

It's basically the "We came here to laugh at you strategy".

sink

J Mysterio wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been curiously quiet.

Could be strategy on their part. All the main parties in the Dáil are aligned on this and have broad political support so they can't really take votes away from other parties. However they might be aware that they are treated as bogeymen by the UK media and politicians and so anything they say will inflame the debate further which could lead to a worse outcome for everyone. Don't really know how Shinners think so I might be wrong.

J Mysterio

I guess as pointed out that there is consensus in the Dail, so they are just letting the government get on with it.

The Rape of Lucretia

Panrich wrote: »

We need to 'wind our neck in' in a spirit of friendship and mutual understanding?

While it affects Eireans by consequence, to be fair, Brexit it a UK tragedy, and they have some justification in asking to be let get on with in some privacy without their neighbours sticking their oar in on their sad plight.

MPFGLB

J Mysterio wrote: »

Sinn Fein have been curiously quiet.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/ireland-not-accept-anything-brings-11610869#ICID=ios_DailyRecordNewsApp_AppShare_Click_TWshare

Junkyard Tom

LeinsterDub wrote: »

nor do we want to change the constitutional status of NI. The Irish government are respecting the GFA.

Ireland still has the aspiration to unite Ireland in its constitution and the British have agreed it's a matter for the people of Ireland alone without external impediment (i.e. British interference), now may not be the time but the above remains true.

kowtow wrote: »

I think it's important to remember that whatever noise the DUP might be making there are plenty of mainstream conservatives who would withdraw support from the government on the strength of a foreign power seeking to impose an economic border within the United kingdom.

The CON's are in no position to display a lack of unity and risk letting a Corbyn led LAB/LIB-DEM coalition in which would return the DUP to their rightful position as 'backbench nutcases'.

Second Yellow

I can't wait to see the implications in the north during the next election. Hopefully won't be too far away either.

Samaris

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

While it affects Eireans by consequence, to be fair, Brexit it a UK tragedy, and they have some justification in asking to be let get on with in some privacy without their neighbours sticking their oar in on their sad plight.

Next door neighbour has every right to protest and at least demand some guarantee of knowledge of what they're doing from someone about to blow up their house.

Peregrinus

kowtow wrote: »

That really is the fundamental difference in the outlook between these two countries.

When it comes down to it a large part of the UK - and this has been the case for many years, has been uncomfortable with the degree to which independent, democratic, sovereignty has been passed away from London.

I hear the argument that some of that concern is a whipped up frenzy.

I hear the argument that the price Britain would pay to regain that sovereignty would not be as large as it may turn out to be in a hard brexit

But I can't help looking at the picture objectively and reaching the conclusion that by and large the British place a higher value on their independence and sovereignty - certainly than we do in Ireland - and arguably more than other nations in Europe.

I've always thought that the EU would ultimately be a generational question - I find a political or federal EU uncomfortable for a host of reasons, but I've always accepted that a younger generation might genuinely feel themselves EU citizens first, and national citizens second, and in due course set about fixing the finance mechanisms and making the place more democratic. Watching the debate here I wonder whether to some extent it is a small vs large nation thing as well - and we already know it's a regional and occupational thing within each nation.

And for those countries that do come to rely on a higher power in Brussels for political management - out of choice - it is interesting to reflect on the impact that might have on the quality of and engagement in domestic politics. One of the most enlightening, shocking conversations I can remember in my lifetime was at dinner with a Spanish fund manager, right in the worst days post Lehman - when we were hunting around banks from Canada to London to take overnight sterling and dollar deposits, there was a real panic on - and he said to me "This is why the Spanish people want Merkel in charge! they want someone competent in charge of the economy".

We really do live, for our sins, in fascinating times. I hope we don't all get so caught up in taking sides not to stand back and ponder the seismic shifts which are taking place.

Thanks for this. Couple of thoughts, in no particular order.

I’ve always said that those who expect Brexit to make the UK better off in economic or material terms were somewhere on a spectrum that runs between “mistaken” and “delusional”. I don’t see a plausible real-world scenario in which Brexit does not impoverish the UK; the only question is by how much.

A more more respectable pro-Brexit position, I think, is to accept that that yes, there will be a material price to be paid, but to argue that it’s a price worth paying in order to secure other intangible, but nevertheless valuable, outcomes. You can’t say outright that this is wrong, since the value to be attached to intangibles is a subjective, personal preference; reasonable people can make different choices about such matters.

That doesn’t mean, though, that such a Brexit case can’t be critically scrutinised. We can at least ask what are the intangible goods that are sought to be acheived? And why are they to be valued? And are they, in fact, likely to be secured by Brexit?

“Taking back control” is a pro-Brexit case of this kind, provided we are careful not to attribute value to “control” by suggesting it will be the kind of control that can make the UK more prosperous. (If we do that, we’re back to the purely material case for Brexit which, as I have said, I do not think is credible.)

There is a difference, though, between “sovereignty” or “autonomy” on the one hand, “control” on the other. If we look just at the progress of the Brexit discussions, we see pretty clearly that while the UK acts independently of the other EU-27 in those discussions, and is in “control” of the positions it takes, the red lines it draws, etc, this doesn’t translate into a high degree of “control” over the course or outcome of the negotiations. "Why not?" we ask ourselves.

I think there’s a discourse that prevails in the UK that sees participating in the EU as a cession of sovereignty - member states cede sovereignty to Brussels, after which they have less sovereignty. There’s an alternative discourse, though, in which member states don’t so much cede sovereignty as pool it. This doesn’t involve a reduction in sovereignty; more a commitment to the exercise of sovereignty in a collaborative and collective way, which results in a greater effect being achieved though the exercise of that sovereignty.

There is, of course, a degree of truth in both these discourses, but I think myself that the second discourse has greater validity, certainly in the contemporary world. I think the course of the Brexit negotiations thus far exemplifies that. But I think we also see it at work in , e.g., the UK’s toadying to Donald Trump - May rushing to be the first to congratulate him, the State Visit invitation, etc. These would not reflect May’s instincts, or the instincts of the UK political establishment. But, having “taken back control” from the EU, they desperately need a well-disposed US, and they have no choice (and therefore no control) but to lie back and think of England. And being seen to do this, of course, doesn’t strengthen the UK’s international standing, reputation or clout; it weakens it. which, of course, will have consequences when the UK comes to negotiate, among other things, trade deals with other countries.

With Brexit, the UK is free-er to adopt what positions it wants, but it generally matters less what positions the UK adopts. To use a financial analogy, they have more freedom to choose how to spend their money, but the currency is devalued and the net effect is that they can buy less of what they want.

You're perfectly right that there's a small nation vs. large nation perspective going on here. We in Ireland have few illusions about how effectively we could exercise our sovereignty on an entirely autonomous basis. The UK is perhaps in the unfortunate position of being a small nation that used to be a large one, and has expectations conditioned by that.

Essentially, I think the notion of “control” that the Brexit campaign offers is a chimera, which has an appeal that rests on invoking memories the international status which the UK had in the past. What Brexit offers is autonomy; the right to make decisions unilaterally rather that collectively, collaboratively. But the UK’s place in the world is not such that autonomy of this kind translates into control. As Sartre would say, you can’t make a choice unless there is a choice to be made. The UK can’t choose to use its control in a way that would make it more prosperous than it would have been had it remained in the EU. And there are many other desirable outcomes which, likewise, the UK cannot choose to achieve. Brexit gives the UK fewer choices, not more.

In short, I think the UK alone will have less control, and less effective sovereignty, over its own destiny than the UK would, acting with others through the EU.

Memnoch

There is an interesting discussion to be had. The UK government is arguably gaining sovreignty by freeing itself from the EU. But on its own it's much more vulnerable to bullying by multinational corporations that are increasingly extending their influence throughout the globe.

Is this something to the benefit of UK citizens? Removal of the ECJ, roll back of workers rights, cuts to corporation tax etc. And of course if the economy tanks then further privitisation of vital services, thus ceding further control of the country to corporations who are, arguably, far less accountable to the British electorate than say an EU government in which the UK has a say and a veto where major decisions are concerned.

So the question is whether the citizens of the UK will have greater autonomy by ceding control to the EU vs by ceding control to corporations who will be able to exert greater influence over an isolated and economically weakened British state.

There is, of course, the other question, of whether the EU really can/will stand up to the rising corporatcracy? I would have liked to think so, that surely a democratic alliance of 500 million citizens has a better chance than one with only 50 million. Their treatment of Greece and Ireland did not enamour them to the left and the entire episode of the financial crisis and the EU's response to it has certainly left a bitter taste in the mouth.

Looking at how American democracy has been utterly vanquished it is hard to remain optimistic for the future of western democracy in general.

Enzokk

kowtow wrote: »

I think it's important to remember that whatever noise the DUP might be making there are plenty of mainstream conservatives who would withdraw support from the government on the strength of a foreign power seeking to impose an economic border within the United kingdom.

The DUP may be doing Theresa May a favour here and drawing some fire away from her but imposing a customs union on one part of the UK won't fly.

It may well be possible to find a form of words which maintains regulatory equivalence until such time as a satisfactory electronic border can be implemented to mutual satisfaction. After all there is still a transition period to get through and regulatory equivalence is what we have already.

Any customs union solution will have to leave the whole of the UK free to make its own trade agreements outside the EU.

I suspect there will be some financial incentive from the UK to Ireland to help implement future arrangements and perhaps additional priority treatment on the UK land bridge.

My sense is that they are actually closer to an agreement here than the rhetoric suggests but everyone must have their shot at the limelight, even the DUP.

Your solution is a border either way, whether it happens now or in 3 years time (after another 2 years transition). The only way a border doesn't happen is if the UK or NI has a customs union with the EU. Otherwise you can have electronic checks as much as you want, how do you ensure that those chlorinated chicken that is now imported from the US doesn't make its way to Ireland? It will have to be physically checked to ensure the products are according to EU standards. Or am I on the wrong path here?

LeinsterDub

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ireland still has the aspiration to unite Ireland in its constitution and the British have agreed it's a matter for the people of Ireland alone without external impediment (i.e. British interference), now may not be the time but the above remains true.

The Irish government have acknowledged this can only occur through concensus futher more we aren't attempting to influence that concensus using brexit as a bargaining chip so I fail to see the relevance of the above.

murphaph

The DUP are not really in the fantastic position some people seem to think.

They can collapse the government but then it's almost certainly game over.

Either the Tories come back with an overall majority and can proceed or Labour take the driving seat and either the UK as a whole stays in the SM and CU or at the very least NI.

I don't particularly want a UI but I'd die laughing if NI was isolated from GB because of Brexit after the dinosaur DUP supported it (and funneled money for it).

murphaph

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The Irish government have acknowledged this can only occur through concensus futher more we aren't attempting to influence that concensus using brexit as a bargaining chip so I fail to see the relevance of the above.

If anything Brexit has shown us the tribally divided NI needs to be kept at arm's length.

Peregrinus

murphaph wrote: »

If anything Brexit has shown us the tribally divided NI needs to be kept at arm's length.

At arm's length, but with a totally open border?

flaneur

What concerns me is that despite all the discussion of the Good Friday Ageeement very few current generation Tories and UKIP types seem to know what it is, what its significance is or what the UK agreed to.

If the May government starts to behave as if the GFA is something you can just cast aside because of party political or government formation issues, we have a potentially bigger issue than we thought.

The GFA is predicated in the fact that both governments are supposed to be its guardians and caretakers.

All I’m seeing in Westminster at present is ranting and raving about sovereignty and in various media outlets I’ve seen a complete misunderstanding of what the reality of Northern Ireland is, simply because it doesn’t feature in UK political debate. Many people have very little familiarity with the place, other than they see it either as a troublesome possession or the source or terrorist attacks in England.

Mishandling and engaging with only one side of NI politics and blundering into that position through utter ignorance is a very, very dangerous game.

This is one of the biggest problems the UK has always had. Because it’s not a federal democracy and just has ad hoc devolution of powers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and then one comparatively huge unitary England, you’ve a major lack of political engagement. Also NI operates an entirely parallel political system with completely different parties to England and Scotland is basically heading towards being a second parallel democracy since the SNP became the major party there.

When you look at it, it’s a very odd political and governmental structure that still looks more like England and her possessions than a modern multi-state federation. Spain is the other example of that kind of ad hoc mess and look at what just happened in Catalonia ...

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Conservative party manifesto contained a promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands and people voted for it. As much as I disagree, they're entitled to deliver that manifesto if they win which they did.

Entitled to deliver it, yes. Able to deliver it, no.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Entitled to deliver it, yes. Able to deliver it, no.

They are able to deliver it as well but it will be neutering the UK economy in doing so at a time it's on the ground struggling in the first place.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

They are able to deliver it as well but it will be neutering the UK economy in doing so at a time it's on the ground struggling in the first place.

May was Home Secretary, this was her top priority, and she made no dent in non-EU immigration at all.

The UK needs immigrants. The immigrant communities know it - that's why the non-EU immigrant communities voted for Brexit - get rid of the EU immigrants, more places for their own relations.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Infini wrote: »

The broad case made was on desires and wishes and not on facts. They promised moneys with no understanding of what they get back in return. They then make promises about how they'll get great trade deals etc and yet everything they "promise" is not turning out to be that when reality sets in. They say lets save 350m and use it on the NHS but are now potentially paying billions in leaving bills to meet their previous commitments. They're giving up their veto that would allow them to stop changes that would be to their detriment. Their promises are coming to naught as basically the EU has all the cards and they have little to nothing so weak is their position.

I disagree. They were right to say that the only effective way of taking control of borders was by leaving the European Union. They were right to say that the only effective way of gaining control of trade policy was by leaving the European Union and they were right to say that the only way to ensure that the Supreme Court and Parliament have the final say on British law is to leave the European Union. These are all true, and all of these have advantages.

Infini wrote: »

The problem is that while it hasnt been extreme as such this is essentially a slow motion crash. It could be more described as putting the country in an acid vat. It doesnt burn the place immediately but its corrosive and wears the country down over time. They have growth thats slower than JAPAN because of Brexit for crying out loud and that country was stuck in stagnation for a decade. Everyone else has higher growth. They promised everything would be great if they leave the EU but instead its coming to nothing but disadvantages politically and economically. The only reason thing's arent worse is because the country hasnt left the EU yet. it's when the actual conditions on the ground hit like trade tariffs going up when things go south quickly. If May gets nothing in December for example you can have buisnesses activating contingency plans because they cant afford to wait and then thats when you see more serious damage emerge. What happens for example if she has to agree to these things and basically Brexit shapes up to be a vastly inferior deal than just staying? What if there's no deal at all because they either refuse to compromise in the end or the brexiteers throw their toys out of the pram because they get nothing they like?

Again, I think this is hyperbole again. You claim that the Leave campaign was based on desires and not on facts, but it seems that the prophesies of doom you are presenting are no better.

The word "crash" isn't applicable when we're talking about Brexit related uncertainty leading to subdued growth. That's also the difference between Britain and Japan. Japan has slow economic growth generally, but the UK has slow growth as a result of political uncertainty. When that uncertainty clears, there's no reason to doubt that Britain's prospects for economic growth will improve.

I'm also doubtful on the scale of job moves. Companies seem to be moving in the low hundreds rather than by the thousands just to hedge their bets. This is particularly true in financial services.

I think your post is full of hyperbole, but I'm waiting to see real reasons for why the UK is going to hell in a handcart.

Infini wrote: »

The DUP are oppertunists plain and simple. They're as bad as UKIP imo. SF aint the best either but to be honest they even disliked the EU and opposed referendums for years but they're not fools they know themselves that leaving is actually risking far more problems than it solves. I do agree that not sitting in Westminster isnt helping them either but that was their official position due to the oath to the queen I believe. I dont hate the DUP cos of being unionists but rather their willingness to happily throw the majority of their state under the brexit bus for their political and ideological gains rather than practial and economic ones. I also dislike Arlene because she was the one in charge of that scheme that cost their own taxpayers money but wouldnt even temporarily step aside. Basically disowned the problem she was in charge of. They also want a land border rather than a sea border ignoring the fact that its neither economically sound or the fact its impractical as well. Its alot easier to monitor the ports than it is to monitor a long winding border. They forget that its not a united ireland that primarily Ireland wants a sea border but practical ones because of the porous nature of the ONLY land border the UK has with the EU not to mention the GFA. Ironically the very strategy they're pursing might END unionism or result in a united ireland in the long term.

Again - irrespective of how you feel about the DUP, the opportunity was there and they took it. I don't blame them at all. SF have abdicated responsibility for nationalists in Westminster. They wiped out the SDLP who are the only party who would have given them a genuine voice in parliament. The numbers game always wins out in Westminster. It's all about getting legislation through the chamber. The DUP have been great for the Tories in that regard so far.

Infini wrote: »

Also have to laugh that some of these brexiteer think they can treat Ireland like they still run the place and realise theyre not talking to just Ireland but our 26 other friends as well.

Obviously they can't, but this argument extends in two ways. Firstly in the reverse and secondly to the unionists.

People keep referring to the peace process as if it is only about nationalists. The truth is that the sea border proposal would have a negative impact on unionists and the integrity of Northern Ireland within the UK. I'd be interested to see what conclusion is reached on this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!



I disagree. They were right to say that the only effective way of taking control of borders was by leaving the European Union. They were right to say that the only effective way of gaining control of trade policy was by leaving the European Union and they were right to say that the only way to ensure that the Supreme Court and Parliament have the final say on British law is to leave the European Union. These are all true, and all of these have advantages.



Again, I think this is hyperbole again. You claim that the Leave campaign was based on desires and not on facts, but it seems that the prophesies of doom you are presenting are no better.

The word "crash" isn't applicable when we're talking about Brexit related uncertainty leading to subdued growth. That's also the difference between Britain and Japan. Japan has slow economic growth generally, but the UK has slow growth as a result of political uncertainty. When that uncertainty clears, there's no reason to doubt that Britain's prospects for economic growth will improve.

I'm also doubtful on the scale of job moves. Companies seem to be moving in the low hundreds rather than by the thousands just to hedge their bets. This is particularly true in financial services.

I think your post is full of hyperbole, but I'm waiting to see real reasons for why the UK is going to hell in a handcart.



Again - irrespective of how you feel about the DUP, the opportunity was there and they took it. I don't blame them at all. SF have abdicated responsibility for nationalists in Westminster. They wiped out the SDLP who are the only party who would have given them a genuine voice in parliament. The numbers game always wins out in Westminster. It's all about getting legislation through the chamber. The DUP have been great for the Tories in that regard so far.



Obviously they can't, but this argument extends in two ways. Firstly in the reverse and secondly to the unionists.

People keep referring to the peace process as if it is only about nationalists. The truth is that the sea border proposal would have a negative impact on unionists and the integrity of Northern Ireland within the UK. I'd be interested to see what conclusion is reached on this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The only problem or sticking point with a sea border/regularity divergence as a solution is the abstract notion of 'feeling' British. Nothing else.
With the EU and the UK seemingly willing to work on it as a potential solution and with the only survey of opinion that we have (the Queens one) suggesting the majority in NI have no problem with it, it is once again tragic that the DUP can rule it out. To the detriment of all.

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

People keep referring to the peace process as if it is only about nationalists. The truth is that the sea border proposal would have a negative impact on unionists and the integrity of Northern Ireland within the UK. I'd be interested to see what conclusion is reached on this.

I think the fact that NI as a whole voted to Remain explains this. From a Unionist perspective, I would imagine that the notion of remaining was the ideal scenario whereby you had the link to the UK, together with the open border. Now, one of those is going to be compromised.

There was no vote asking - well which would you prefer; an open border or strictly adhering to the UK. From a practical standpoint, you would imagine that the open border would have the greater visible impact on ordinary people's lives, as you realistically have to show ID at some point when you board a plane anyway - hence the greater focus on the land border.

I do concede though that only another vote between the people of NI could actually reveal the preference of the general populous.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May was Home Secretary, this was her top priority, and she made no dent in non-EU immigration at all.

It's different this time, though.

Back during the time that you mention, when May was Home Secretary and was pledged to reduce non-EU immigration (if I recall, to "the low tens of thousands") the UK was free to regulate non-EU immigration pretty well any way it liked and, as you point out, her efforts had basically no effect at all.

What this tells us that "sovereignty" enabling a country to set its own migration rules, plus a stated policy objective of reducing immigration, don't actually result in a reduction in immigration (which I think underlines the distinction I made above between sovereignty and control).

It doesn't follow, though, that nothing will reduce immigration. Net immigration fell sharply in the 12 months to June 2017, and most of this was accounted for by lower net EU immigration. And, since Brexit hasn't happened yet, none of that is attributable to the exercise of sovereignty by changing migration rules. So how was it achieved? Basically, by making the UK a less pleasant, prosperous and promising place. Significantly, much of the change in the EU migration figures is accounted for, not by a fall in the number of EU nationals entering the UK, but by a rise in the number of EU nationals already in the UK choosing to leave. The fall in sterling will have hit those who come to the UK for the purpose of earning money and remitting it to their home country. The rise, or perceived rise, in anti-immigrant sentiment will have done its bit too. Uncertainty over the prospects for particular sectors sectors of the economy likely to be badly affected by Brexit, plus the lowering expectations for British economic performance in the medium term, will have done the rest.

solodeogloria

Schorpio wrote: »

I think the fact that NI as a whole voted to Remain explains this. From a Unionist perspective, I would imagine that the notion of remaining was the ideal scenario whereby you had the link to the UK, together with the open border. Now, one of those is going to be compromised.

There was no vote asking - well which would you prefer; an open border or strictly adhering to the UK. From a practical standpoint, you would imagine that the open border would have the greater visible impact on ordinary people's lives, as you realistically have to show ID at some point when you board a plane anyway - hence the greater focus on the land border.

I do concede though that only another vote between the people of NI could actually reveal the preference of the general populous.

Good morning!

That's precisely my point. You say that there was no vote on a border. That's true.

A majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for remain in the referendum. That doesn't mean they support a sea border.

That argument is weak and it doesn't nullify the point that if we're going to start discussing the peace process it needs to be with consideration of both nationalists and unionists.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

Schorpio wrote: »

I do concede though that only another vote between the people of NI could actually reveal the preference of the general populous.

We already know their preference - they voted "remain", which would give them unchanged links with Britain and unchanged links with Ireland. That's what they want.

The UK government, in order to please the English and to avert political division in the Tory party, will not give them what they want, and what they have voted for. I think it would be offensive and positively inflammatory to hold a second vote asking them which, of two things that they don't want, they want. It could only underline their subordinate status and their lack of either sovereignty or control, and I think that has probably been sufficiently underlined already.

(Plus, it would be impolitic. Regardless of which of these two alternatives they dislike more, the likelihood is that both are going to be inflicted upon them, to some degree. So you'd end up failing to deliver on the outcome of the second referendum as well as on the first.)

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Schorpio wrote: »

I think the fact that NI as a whole voted to Remain explains this. From a Unionist perspective, I would imagine that the notion of remaining was the ideal scenario whereby you had the link to the UK, together with the open border. Now, one of those is going to be compromised.

There was no vote asking - well which would you prefer; an open border or strictly adhering to the UK. From a practical standpoint, you would imagine that the open border would have the greater visible impact on ordinary people's lives, as you realistically have to show ID at some point when you board a plane anyway - hence the greater focus on the land border.

I do concede though that only another vote between the people of NI could actually reveal the preference of the general populous.

Good morning!

That's precisely my point. You say that there was no vote on a border. That's true.

A majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for remain in the referendum. That doesn't mean they support a sea border.

That argument is weak and it doesn't nullify the point that if we're going to start discussing the peace process it needs to be with consideration of both nationalists and unionists.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The same is true of the wider implications of Brexit and those that voted against. Including consideration of remaining in the SM and CU.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

The same is true of the wider implications of Brexit and those that voted against. Including consideration of remaining in the SM and CU.

Good morning!

I've gone through why I think that's not true many times. You can see why I think that. I don't think we're going to have a breakthrough on this point.

tl;dr - the referendum was won on the basis of taking back control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

A majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for remain in the referendum. That doesn't mean they support a sea border.

That argument is weak and it doesn't nullify the point that if we're going to start discussing the peace process it needs to be with consideration of both nationalists and unionists.

I absolutely agree that both nationalists and unionists need to be considered. No argument there.

In terms of border, the people of NI voted for no border. Now they are effectively being asked to compromise at the expense of the English. The whole thing is compounded by Arlene, who seems to be making a case that NI needs to stick rigidly to the UK - never mind the fact that the majority of her country didn't support Leave in the first place, and that she has no idea which border option her people would actually prefer. In that respect, the DUP are a disgrace.

Schorpio

solodeogloria wrote: »

tl;dr - the referendum was won on the basis of taking back control.

Huh, when I voted I must have missed the part on my ballot paper where is said - just so you know, if we leave the EU, we will also leave both the SM and CU.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

The same is true of the wider implications of Brexit and those that voted against. Including consideration of remaining in the SM and CU.

Good morning!

I've gone through why I think that's not true many times. You can see why I think that. I don't think we're going to have a breakthrough on this point.

tl;dr - the referendum was won on the basis of taking back control.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

That is irrelevant. You take minority voters into consideration when it suits you and you toss them to the wind when it suits you. There were varied views on Brexit and high profile Brexit campaigners did so on the grounds of remaining in the single market.

The point is in terms of democracy your position is inconsistent.

Nody

Schorpio wrote: »

Huh, when I voted I must have missed the part on my ballot paper where is said - just so you know, if we leave the EU, we will also leave both the SM and CU.

Not only you but the main cheerleaders for the leave campaign as well:

"There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave." Daniel Hannan, Tory MEP

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market." Boris Johnson

And of course there's this:

But hey; the EU vote was clearly about becoming a third party country which was argued by the Brexit campaign according to Solo so that has to be the only truth...

Cookie_Monster

I don't understand the call for a sea border as the preference, how can Ireland / EU trust the UK to police it effectively?, which means you still need a land border to catch everything coming from the north. Surely the single land border then is the easier, less worse solution by default?

Peregrinus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't understand the call for a sea border as the preference, how can Ireland / EU trust the UK to police it effectively?, which means you still need a land border to catch everything coming from the north. Surely the single land border then is the easier, less worse solution by default?

What makes you think the UK would be policing it? If it's there to protect the integrity of the single market I could easily see a deal in which EU officials (paid by the EU) were stationed in Belfast, Larne, etc. Or even in ports on the British side.

It would be a much easier border to police than the land border, since it has a small nunber of already-regulated crossing point - basically, ports and airports. It wouldn't have to be a huge operation.

VinLieger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't understand the call for a sea border as the preference, how can Ireland / EU trust the UK to police it effectively?, which means you still need a land border to catch everything coming from the north. Surely the single land border then is the easier, less worse solution by default?

Why would the UK who are the ones pushing for a border in the first place for immigration reasons not police it effectively once implemented?

Peregrinus

VinLieger wrote: »

Why would the UK who are the ones pushing for a border in the first place for immigration reasons not police it effectively once implemented?

The UK proposal is that there will be no immigration border in Ireland, or between NI and GB. They are committed to maintaining the Common Travel Area.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK proposal is that there will be no immigration border in Ireland, or between NI and GB. They are committed to maintaining the Common Travel Area.

They will be implementing the border due to WTO rules however but that requires them to get sued first since they are to clueless to know that it's required. Having said that note how the word most commonly used is "We don't want a border" rather than "There will never be a border".

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK proposal is that there will be no immigration border in Ireland, or between NI and GB. They are committed to maintaining the Common Travel Area.

Nody wrote: »

They will be implementing the border due to WTO rules however but that requires them to get sued first since they are to clueless to know that it's required. Having said that note how the word most commonly used is "We don't want a border" rather than "There will never be a border".

Listening to the statements at the moment it seems that Brexiteers think that they can just ignore the border if they want to. They have abdicated all responsibility of maintaining a border to the EU and if there is a border it will be the EU's fault. Is this the same as the divorce bill? Where they all were saying that they don't have to pay anything but it turns out that they in fact do have to pay?

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

They will be implementing the border due to WTO rules however but that requires them to get sued first since they are to clueless to know that it's required. Having said that note how the word most commonly used is "We don't want a border" rather than "There will never be a border".

WTO rules don't require them to control migration in any way - the WTO MFN requirements apply to trade, not migration.

If they leave the EU without a trade deal then, yes, they have to control trade across their border with the EU (or else open all their borders to unrestricted trade with the entire world). A few Brexiters who are solid bone from ear to ear - most recently Kate Hoey, I think - have suggested that they would not control the Irish border at all, but the UK government has never suggested that.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

Listening to the statements at the moment it seems that Brexiteers think that they can just ignore the border if they want to. They have abdicated all responsibility of maintaining a border to the EU and if there is a border it will be the EU's fault. Is this the same as the divorce bill? Where they all were saying that they don't have to pay anything but it turns out that they in fact do have to pay?

Peregrinus touched on it below but it's very simple; whatever controls they do on EU goods they can do on goods from everyone else importing; whatever controls they don't do on EU goods they can't do on anyone else importing. Hence if they leave the border open as now they would not be allowed to do any controls on any goods of any kind imported from anywhere in the world; think a moment on Chinese export without any checks on quality, content etc. flowing into UK and the screams that would raise. That is why there will be a border in the north with controls short of the best trade deal in the word for EU (we get unlimited access to your market without controls but we keep all our controls on our side for your goods) being implemented.

flaneur

The fundamental problem is that the DUP and the right wing of the Tories and UKIP are all expressions of the same thing - British nationalism.

Without an assembly in Northern Ireland you will probably just see it being cut off by a border. You are getting undiluted DUP policies in a way that was never envisioned by the Good Friday Agreement because of the weird alignment of political circumstances in London

I think any deal on Northern Ireland, certainly with the current politics in London, is going to be impossible.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

It's worth remembering that there is a very clear distinction in the British constitution between the person and the office. That Trump occupies the office of President is unfortunate, but remember that it is impossible for Donald Trump to come on a state visit to anywhere, only the President of the United States, an office currently occupied by Trump, can come on a state visit.

May is not in Trump's pockets, even if there had been no Brexit she would still be saying similar things where the U.S. is concerned - diplomacy is aimed at the Office and the country it represents, not the man in it. It doesn't mean she likes him any more than the rest of us.

Trump has outrageous faults, but London has hosted previous occupants of the same office who have been directly responsible for torture, committed gross sexual misdemeanors, and God knows what else. In recent memory State coaches have been provided for cannibals. Diplomacy and court convention requires that we honour the office and the Nation, not the occupant of the office personally, at least within reason. Both Ireland and Britain have hosted heads of states with atrocious human rights records.

The UK will host, at some point, the President of the United States because the U.S. is a close ally, and the President was democratically elected. It's a State visit, not a political endorsement.

Red_Wake

kowtow wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat.  Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it?  Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them.  By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground.  Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2.  It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

It's worth remembering that there is a very clear distinction in the British constitution between the person and the office.  That Trump occupies the office of President is unfortunate, but remember that it is impossible for Donald Trump to come on a state visit to anywhere, only the President of the United States, an office currently occupied by Trump, can come on a state visit.

May is not in Trump's pockets, even if there had been no Brexit she would still be saying similar things where the U.S. is concerned - diplomacy is aimed at the Office and the country it represents, not the man in it. It doesn't mean she likes him any more than the rest of us.

Trump has outrageous faults, but London has hosted previous occupants of the same office who have been directly responsible for torture, committed gross sexual misdemeanors, and God knows what else. In recent memory State coaches have been provided for cannibals. Diplomacy and court convention requires that we honour the office and the Nation, not the occupant of the office personally, at least within reason. Both Ireland and Britain have hosted heads of states with atrocious human rights records.

The UK will host, at some point, the President of the United States because the U.S. is a close ally, and the President was democratically elected. It's a State visit, not a political endorsement.

Sorry for the tangent, but who does this refer to? I'm quite curious.

ArmaniJeanss

Red_Wake wrote: »

Sorry for the tangent, but who does this refer to? I'm quite curious.

State visits by Idi Amin of Uganda in the 1970s I guess.

Leroy42

You completely miss my point. Brexit has meant that the UK, already having as many countries do, to rely on the US, now need them even more. Of course at some stage Trump will depart but the core balance of the relationship will not change. What has changed is that by leaving the EU, UK now is 60 million vs 350 million rather than a combined 500 million v 350 million.

And Trump, as much as Putin, knows this. A fractured Europe is in their interests. Then the US can start to demand things like chlorinated chicken, GM crops etc etc, and UK will have little option but to agree. There are the little things. Privatisation of the NHS etc is the bigger thing.

It goes back to the distinction between sovereignty and control. The world has changed such that very few countries can exit without joining with others.

It is easier for Ireland to accept that as we don't have a history of being in charge, so if we pulled out of EU we would need to enter into agreements with UK or US. We would probably end up worse off in terms of control than before. But the world has changed from the time Uk stood alone and could dictate across the world.

You had equal say in 28 and felt that you couldn't get want you wanted. Now you will significantly less say in numerous relationships and expect to have more! For US you can also out in issues with China & Russia.

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

At arm's length, but with a totally open border?

Yes. The way it is today. Open border but the UK's problem.

murphaph

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus make some really interesting points about the difference in sovereignty and control.

Look at the latest Trump twitter spat. Not only did he use the far right BF videos but when called out on it he basically told May to mind her own damn business.

And what should May do about it? Nothing, UK have little option but to accept whatever the US wants as they totally rely on them. By cutting themselves out of the EU, even if they get a good trade deal, they will need to look at the US to make up the lost ground. Even Rudd was in he parliament yesterday saying that the relationship is what is important, forget the details.

But now instead of an equal member of 28, they are the minority member of 2. It will be much like the relationship Ireland has had with the UK for so long.

Not sure how that is taking back control.

Good comparison with Ireland. We were sovereign but still in the UK's shadow for decades with little power/control. We now have the apparent upper hand but we actually surrendered some sovereignty to the EU to gain that power.

Interesting dynamic for sure.