Brexit discussion thread III

murphaph

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They are between a rock and a hard place.

Call for a new referendum and no Brexit: Brexit voters are mad at you.

Allow Brexit to go through on the nod: Nissan closes, phone centres close, your voters lose their jobs, people ask why you were silent on the most destructive decision for the NE since Thatcher.

Lose-lose, but which is the bigger risk?

I think these MPs are realising just how bad Brexit is going to be for sure, otherwise they would not dare call into question the sanctity of the 2016 election. It's a major shift IMO and it could genuinely be the shift that kills hard Brexit. Labour's London MPs already are for a very soft Brexit. If Corbyn's northern MPs are now also pushing for this, Corbyn will be very isolated, very fast. It's a seminal moment IMO.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Lose-lose, but which is the bigger risk?

Calling for a vote on Brexit; why? Because they can't blame EU for all problems and have to deal with reality which is not popular nor something wining you votes. Rather it's much easier to keep spouting about the evil EU holding your voters back and how all the issues are not your government/party's fault but someone else and that your voters should be pissed with you about those others.

That's the reality of how things play out; far from ideal but realism over trying to make actual change.

LeinsterDub

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Newton Emerson delivers a scathing critique of the DUP, essentially saying they just decided to campaign for Leave off the hoof:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dup-faces-heavy-responsibility-for-brexit-position-taken-lightly-1.3489256?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true

That's hardly fair. There was a clear thought process to their decision

Step 1 : What are them-uns doing.
Step 2 : Flegs.
Step 3 : We'll do the opposite so.

Mezcita

Have a feeling that people would take to the streets in a pretty big way if any attempt was made to backtrack from Brexit. A quick look at the Daily Express reveals that propaganda levels on this are off the charts.

Brexit simply has to happen IMO. It's the only way they will realize that they are no longer the great power they once were. It will also be a great way to shut them up about those big bad bullies in the EU.

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Newton Emerson delivers a scathing critique of the DUP, essentially saying they just decided to campaign for Leave off the hoof:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/dup-faces-heavy-responsibility-for-brexit-position-taken-lightly-1.3489256?mode=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Im not sure its as scathing as you think or as much as it should be at any rate. Seems to read as a list of excuses to me and almost a vindication of their policies. His statement on nationalist 'conspiracy theories' seems wide of the mark too.

Perhaps he should focus on what the outcome of Brexit is likely to be and how this will affect their economy and society. These are the realities that nationalism has focused on.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

Calling for a vote on Brexit; why? Because they can't blame EU for all problems and have to deal with reality.

If the reality is mass unemployment of your voters caused by Brexit (and Nissan will leave no-one they lay off in any doubt) and you are supposed to be a Labour MP, that will be a problem in itself.

J Mysterio

Mezcita wrote: »

Have a feeling that people would take to the streets in a pretty big way if any attempt was made to backtrack from Brexit. A quick look at the Daily Express reveals that propaganda levels on this are off the charts.

Brexit simply has to happen IMO. It's the only way they will realize that they are no longer the great power they once were. It will also be a great way to shut them up about those big bad bullies in the EU.

I think a hard Brexit is inevitable now tbh. I also think that it wont shut them up about the 'EU bullies' either, that will continue, only nobody will care anymore after Brexit, as these fools continue to spout shıte as the UK sits in ruin.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What? Who is a party to this court case?

If the UK and the EU27 both wanted A50 withdrawn, why would they need to go to court? Just do it. Done. It's like saying that two parties to a contract can't tear it up if they both agree to.

You've said this before, but I fear that you are in danger of falling into the exact same British mindset (trap) of thinking that any situation can be fudged with the requisite amount of political biasing.

The legal problem is elementarily simple: there is no written or implied provision in the TEU or TFEU (the EU's constitutional bedrock) to recall an Article 50 notice. There are only opinions that it can be - and dissenting opinions that it can't.

So, legally, it simply cannot be recalled until and unless the highest judicial authority which has jurisdiction over EU constitutional matters -the ECJ- considers the constitutional issue, and says that it can. That's why a court case is needed. But not by 'some noisy objector': by the UK. If the UK wants to keep that Article 50 withdrawal option as a failsafe, then the UK needs to start that case now (it needed to start it much earlier, objectively) and to get a yes-decision from the ECJ before 30 March 2019.

After 30 March 2019, it's too late: the UK's out by automatic application of EU statute (being the same reason why the UK needs the withdrawal agreement inked by everyone across the Eu27 imperatively by that deadline and no later). The UK then lies outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ, and the case either dies unresolved, or continues for the sake of improving EU constitutional jurisprudence - in either case, irrelevant to the UK, since the UK is no longer an EU member state and would have to reapply for membership under Article 50(5) regardless.

Barnier said the EU would look favourably at a UK request to withdraw its Article 50 notice. That was over a year ago, and it's been reiterated a few times since. But Barnier/the EU27 are just as legally-constrained by EU texts and time-constrained by legal due process as the UK is and, given enough tardiness reached in the day, may well find that they can't honour that offer after all.

Moreover, Barnier and the EU27 are far more politically-constrained about this notional fudge than the UK: it's their legal system and due process -that they have been steadfastly extolling very publicly for the past 2 years when considering and framing successive UK positions- that they'd have to elbow out, in yet another display of ceding to UK exceptionalism.

By way of analogy, it's the same potential trap for the UK to fall into, as the "EU unity before UK trade" wall which the UK ran smack into when trying to split the EU27: Barnier and the EU27 can't be seen to bend EU constitutional principles (we're talking bent way out of shape here) for the sake of EU coherence, nor more than any of the EU27 can afford to do individual deals with the UK for the sake of EU unity.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some noisy objector would no doubt bring a case, and 8 years later we might learn that oops, they shouldn't have done that, but no-one will care by then.

It's the other way around (refer above).

An Ciarraioch

Daniel Hannan advocating that the UK should pursue a Swiss-style Brexit - too much of a compromise for purist Brexiteers, yet not meeting any of our red lines, or those of the EU. He does realise, however, that a customs union outside the Single Market would prove the worst of all worlds:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/05/daniel-hannan-for-partisan-advantage-labour-demands-a-worst-of-all-worlds-brexit.html

Anthracite

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Daniel Hannan advocating that the UK should pursue a Swiss-style Brexit - too much of a compromise for purist Brexiteers, yet not meeting any of our red lines, or those of the EU. He does realise, however, that a customs union outside the Single Market would prove the worst of all worlds:

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/05/daniel-hannan-for-partisan-advantage-labour-demands-a-worst-of-all-worlds-brexit.html

And of course his position slightly ignores the fact that another Switzerland-style, half-in, half-out situation is exactly what the EU is trying to avoid.

seamus

Gerry T wrote: »

Its the opposite I think, for A50 to be withdrawn it would take the signature of all 27 member states. It would only take one of these to delay this past 29/3/19 and we have Brexit.

If the UK requested to withdraw A50, it will come with conditions. The other member states will get together and draw up a list of concessions that the UK will need to make in order to cancel Brexit.

I genuinely believe that list of concessions would be less onerous and less difficult to achieve than the current list of concessions required to achieve a "soft" Brexit.

If anyone was serious about looking for the easiest way out of this mess, withdrawal of A50 is the way.

Havockk

J Mysterio wrote: »

Im not sure its as scathing as you think or as much as it should be at any rate. Seems to read as a list of excuses to me and almost a vindication of their policies. His statement on nationalist 'conspiracy theories' seems wide of the mark too.

Perhaps he should focus on what the outcome of Brexit is likely to be and how this will affect their economy and society. These are the realities that nationalism has focused on.

The part I thought was particularly funny was when he claimed that the DUP would now not get 'credit' for (*maybe) helping to deliver a soft brexit... then proceeds to detail what amounts to a catalogue of political incompetence.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

So, legally, it simply cannot be recalled until and unless the highest judicial authority which has jurisdiction over EU constitutional matters -the ECJ- considers the constitutional issue, and says that it can.

That is your opinion.

If the EU27 and the UK say A50 is withdrawn and Brexit is cancelled, those are the facts on the ground. Your opinion that it CAN'T happen will be irrelevant because it will have happened.

After the fact, someone with standing may object, some awkward Brexiteer perhaps, bring a court case to the highest court etc. (via the lower courts) and years later get a ruling on whether or not it was done by the book.

By which time, no-one will care. If the ruling says no, the EU (28 again by then) will say "Oops, sorry, we won't do it again". The ECJ will not eject a member state because their cancellation of A50 years before was not authorised. The most they will do is recommend changes to the rules to clarify how it should be done next time.

flatty

Genuine question. Can anyone see any possible route by which a50 is requested to be withdrawn?
I cannot.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

If the EU27 and the UK say A50 is withdrawn and Brexit is cancelled, those are the facts on the ground. Your opinion that it CAN'T happen will be irrelevant because it will have happened.

Even if you right. It only takes 1 of the 27 to say they won't sign or that the process of repeal is not correct. You'll find the EU won't rail-road that member into signing and brexit will happen. These decisions require all member states to agree, it's not a 51% like the UK FFS, idiotic in the extreme.

Capt'n Midnight

Anthracite wrote: »

And of course his position slightly ignores the fact that another Switzerland-style, half-in, half-out situation is exactly what the EU is trying to avoid.

It also ignores that the Swiss deal was only supposed to be a temporary stop-gap until the Swiss joined as full members the UK can't expect any such goodwill as they are in the exact opposite situation.

The big problem on the EU side is that it's all been transparent, the positions are documented and published on their website. The UK is playing poker with an opponent that's showing everyone their cards.

Leonard Hofstadter

Anthracite wrote: »

And of course his position slightly ignores the fact that another Switzerland-style, half-in, half-out situation is exactly what the EU is trying to avoid.

Another problem with the Swiss arrangement (despite his beliefs to the contrary) is that it customs and borders are still required, so it wouldn't even solve the border problem for us.

Econ_

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but...

In the context of the recent discussion in this thread, what's the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal? If the deal is rejected by the people, what happens then?

Particularly if the referendum is framed on the basis of "we're definitely leaving, but do you agree with the terms?" then it can't result in a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice, so the only outcome I can see from rejecting a negotiated withdrawal agreement is withdrawal without agreement, which is much worse.

So, what's the desired outcome of those campaigning for a referendum on the deal?

Anybody campaigning for a vote on the deal make very clear that there should be two choices; accept the deal or remain (revoke article 50)

'People's vote' = second referendum

The campaigners have found that framing the question as a 'People's Vote' makes a huge difference in terms of the support it gets (and this is evidenced in the polling numbers)

Capt'n Midnight

News just in.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10/u-k-only-now-asks-business-to-map-supply-chain-ahead-of-brexit

The U.K. government has asked business groups to map their supply chains to flag the areas of the economy most at risk if Brexit imposes additional trading costs on exporters, two people familiar with the matter said.

Sand

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

News just in.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10/u-k-only-now-asks-business-to-map-supply-chain-ahead-of-brexit

"Has asked" as in 2 years ago right?

This British political class are quite possibly the most incompetent ever known. I mean, the only rivals are possibly the English government of the 1660s who presided over the Great Fire of London and the complete humiliation of the English fleet by the Dutch at Chatham.

Nody

If you think that one is bad Sand you'll love this one...

Telepgrah Article wrote:

Michael Gove warns EU could use Irish border issue to hold Britain hostage over Brexit

Michael Gove is concerned the EU will use the Northern Ireland border issue to "hold us hostage" and keep the UK in the Single Market and Customs Union.

The Environment Secretary raised concerns at a private dinner of Tory Eurosceptics that Britain may be unable to secure a customs deal with Brussels before it leaves the EU in March 2019.

He believes that the EU's Irish border "backstop" could be used as a "Trojan Horse" during negotiations in the 21-month transition period after Brexit to keep Britain in the Customs Union indefinitely.

So he's concerned that EU would actually hold May and UK to their word that they agreed in the first place and this is "holding Britain hostage" to insist that they keep their word... The Brexiteers are honestly out Trumping Trump in their twisting of logic at this stage.

ancapailldorcha

seamus wrote: »

If the UK requested to withdraw A50, it will come with conditions. The other member states will get together and draw up a list of concessions that the UK will need to make in order to cancel Brexit.

I genuinely believe that list of concessions would be less onerous and less difficult to achieve than the current list of concessions required to achieve a "soft" Brexit.

If anyone was serious about looking for the easiest way out of this mess, withdrawal of A50 is the way.

A lot of people are saying that the UK won't be able to return to the status quo. I'm sort of on the fence. If the EU27 were willing to go along and consent to Article 50 being withdrawn and it were legal to do so, I'd say that a savvy leader and supporting cast could get the rebate and exemptions back. I think the ideal outcome for many people is that the UK stay in fully if for no other reason than to act as a counterweight to Franco-German ambitions. Then there is the fact that they are a net contributor, the armed forces, intelligence, etc...

Sand wrote: »

"Has asked" as in 2 years ago right?

This British political class are quite possibly the most incompetent ever known. I mean, the only rivals are possibly the English government of the 1660s who presided over the Great Fire of London and the complete humiliation of the English fleet by the Dutch at Chatham.

It's frightening. I mean you have people still pretending that things are going to work out. I have a family member in London who still thinks that things are going to be just fine but then she's a wealthy baby boomer who made several prudent investments.

You also have a cast of leading Brexiteer politicians who vacillate almost on a daily basis. In 2012, Jacob Rees-Mogg lead a rebellion against a plan to reform the House of Lords:

https://twitter.com/George_Osborne/status/993964048269144066

I find it terrifying that checks on government (such that the Lords constitutes one) are so easily being undermined simply because they interfere with precisely the sort of business they were established to prevent and obfuscate.

As an aside, I work as a provider of services to researchers at a University. People are actually leaving and citing Brexit as at least part of the reason. I don't think that it will be a mass Exodus so much as a constant dripping off talent overseas. If this does affect the UK's scientific sector significantly, it is going to be a crying shame.

Sand

Nody wrote: »

If you think that one is bad Sand you'll love this one...

So he's concerned that EU would actually hold May and UK to their word that they agreed in the first place and this is "holding Britain hostage" to insist that they keep their word... The Brexiteers are honestly out Trumping Trump in their twisting of logic at this stage.

I'd wonder if they will buckle and recall Sir Ivan Rodgers in the 11th hour? Maybe Ray Patterson?

J Mysterio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

News just in.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10/u-k-only-now-asks-business-to-map-supply-chain-ahead-of-brexit

Is that for real? It's highly embarassing to have to ask and particularly at this juncture. I thought this was supposed to be what Davis' fabled sectoral reports were about? But wait... They didnt really do them did they? What a fuxking farce.

J Mysterio

Nody wrote: »

If you think that one is bad Sand you'll love this one...

So he's concerned that EU would actually hold May and UK to their word that they agreed in the first place and this is "holding Britain hostage" to insist that they keep their word... The Brexiteers are honestly out Trumping Trump in their twisting of logic at this stage.

It seems the cabinet thinks that international trade and diplomacy is actually just like Made in Chelsea, but on a grander scale. You dont actually do any work, come prepared to meetings or say what you mean, you just make snyde and cryptic comments at dinner parties and private functions, and then someone tells someone untill - y'know - the EU gets the message.

Anthracite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

News just in.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-10/u-k-only-now-asks-business-to-map-supply-chain-ahead-of-brexit

Interestingly, this jaw-dropping news does not merit a mention on the BBC, as far as I can see.

oscarBravo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

...a savvy leader...

Imma stop you there.

Bigus

Ok , this is a relief , a very intelligent man asking Jacobs Rees Mogg some awkward questions, and getting no answers , reminds me of being put down by a stupid barrister that uses unintelligible words spoken eloquently to befuddle uneducated but more intelligent clients.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-44077957

And the final insult to his NI inquisitor about JRM'sinfallible arguments is " god only knows the POPE is infallible "

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but...

In the context of the recent discussion in this thread, what's the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal? If the deal is rejected by the people, what happens then?

Particularly if the referendum is framed on the basis of "we're definitely leaving, but do you agree with the terms?" then it can't result in a withdrawal of the Article 50 notice, so the only outcome I can see from rejecting a negotiated withdrawal agreement is withdrawal without agreement, which is much worse.

So, what's the desired outcome of those campaigning for a referendum on the deal?

Their desired outcome, I’m guessing, is Brexit being called off. Failing that, a much softer Brexit.

Not that they see the referendum itself having that result, I think. Rather, their hope is that a referendum outcome rejecting the negotiated Brexit deal will be the start of a political process of reevaluation and reconsideration about what Brexit is for and what the UK wants. They believe - and I suspect they are right - that there is no majority in the country, and certainly no majority in Parliament, for the kind of hard Brexit that the May government has chosen to target, and that it is attempting to ram through. If the government’s attempts to ram through a particular kind of Brexit are derailed, then there pretty well has to be a fresh conversation about what kind of Brexit to have and, in that conversation, Parliament will be much more influential, and will play a much larger role, than it did in the months after the referendum while May was reading the entrails and coming up with her dysfunctional “red lines”. And there’ll be a recognition that any Brexit, to have any chance of proceeding, must pay a lot more attention to the concerns, wishes, etc of the 48% who voted Remain, and indeed to those of the 52% who didn’t envisage May’s Brexit when they voted Leave. So at worst you’re looking at a much softer Brexit; at best to a national conversation which eventually results in a Remain majority.

Is any of this realistic? Hard to say. Obviously it would require considerable forbearance on the part of the EU in terms of deferring Brexit day or extending the transition period, but if the process offered a genuine prospect of no Brexit, or a better (from the EU’s point of view) Brexit, it’s not unrealistic to at least hope for that forbearance.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What? Who is a party to this court case?

If the UK and the EU27 both wanted A50 withdrawn, why would they need to go to court? Just do it. Done. It's like saying that two parties to a contract can't tear it up if they both agree to.

Some noisy objector would no doubt bring a case, and 8 years later we might learn that oops, they shouldn't have done that, but no-one will care by then.

If by EU-27 you mean the EU member states unanimously agreeing to the withdrawal of the A50 notice, yeah, you're right. If the EU member states are unanimous in wanting something, they can always have it. If necessary, they can amend the treaties to bring it about.

But if even one member state says no, we don't want to accept withdrawal of the A50 notice, then we have a problem, and that problem can only be solved in one of two ways, both involving the ECJ:

1. The EU takes the position that it will only accept withdrawal if the EU-27 unanimously agree to do so. If the UK wishes to persist then it has to go to the ECJ to try to get the Court to rule that it has the right to withdraw its A50 notice unilaterally.

2. The EU Commission/Council/Parliament want to accept the A50 withdrawal without the assent of one (or more) member states. In which case the objecting member states head off to the Court.

In either scenario, the parties to the court proceedings are Member States and the Commission, and the issue is a fundamental one of interpretation of the Treaties. This goes straight to the top of the list.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

If by EU-27 you mean the EU member states unanimously agreeing to the withdrawal of the A50 notice, yeah, you're right.

Yes, that is all I have been trying to say.

Today, neither the UK nor the EU27 wants this officially, just a few unofficial voices in the UK.

EdgeCase

@Peregrinus

The problem is time. The clock is ticking and all the Brexiteers need to do is to filibuster and continue to fight until the deadline approaching results in a default hard brexit.

I think that's a very likely outcome at this stage.

gooch2k9

What's the likelihood of the talks collapsing next month? I've seen plenty of articles over the last two weeks stating they need progress by June, and only this morning May has divided the cabinet to evaluate two options that the EU have already said aren't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44077847

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

@Peregrinus

The problem is time. The clock is ticking and all the Brexiteers need to do is to filibuster and continue to fight until the deadline approaching results in a default hard brexit.

Yes. But that requires the Remain/soft Brexit majority in the House of Commons to allow the ultra-Brexiteers to filibuster past next March. Because the ultra-Brexiteers are a minority, they only way they can have their way is by bullying the government, and then having the government use its authority to control the House of Commons and drive the deal through.

But there's growing disquiet on the backbenches (in both parties), and there are increasing signs that the government is losing control of Parliament - fourteen defeats in the Lords on this Bill alone, all of which now have to come back before the Commons, with the Government not at all confident that it can win on all of them in the Commons. And five (I think) other Bills still to come. And the Cabinet beginning to splinter. And even some Leavers, e.g. Daniel Hannan, saying that the process is not going according to plan, and not producing the outcome that it was supposed to.

There's two ways in which this could work to the Remainers/Softies advantage. In one scenario, the government realises that it cannot push hard Brexit through Parliament, and it decides it must face down the ultra-Brexiteers and compromise with the EU to secure a Withdrawal Agreement. In the other, the government doesn't realise this, it loses the confidence of Parliament, and May has to go. Because of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, this won't necessarily be followed by a general election; there could simply be a new Tory leader installed as Prime Minister. And the fact that a hard Brexit policy couldn't command the confidence of Parliament gives that leader both the excuse and the necessity to negotiation a softer Brexit and/or a delay or deferral with the EU. Because, the thinking goes, this offers the EU a much better prospect than no-deal Brexit does, the EU should be accommodating.

Either way, what the Remainers/Softies are looking for is a way of breaking the current log-jam. That May loses on a matter of confidence, resigns and is replaced by a new leader with a mandate from the party to negotiate a softer Brexit (or even a reconsideration of Brexit) is probably their preferred outcome. Of course there's a lot of "ifs" in there, not the least being that if May goes we cannot say who will replace her. But as matters stand the government is steering the country towards disaster, so really they have nothing to lose by provoking a crisis and seeing what might emerge from it in terms of new possibilities.

Peregrinus

gooch2k9 wrote: »

What's the likelihood of the talks collapsing next month? I've seen plenty of articles over the last two weeks stating they need progress by June, and only this morning May has divided the cabinet to evaluate two options that the EU have already said aren't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44077847

Not high. All the talk about needing progress by June is a tactic to get the UK government to stop trying to ride two horses at once. But if, come June, they are still doing that, I don't think it's in the EU's interests to collapse talks at that point. The longer it goes before the British start making preparations for a no-deal Brexit, the more catastrophic for the UK a no-deal Brexit becomes, and the more people will realise this, and so the more pressure on the British to start getting real.

Of course, it's a gamble. By the time the British realise they need to compromise and make a deal, it may be too late; there may simply not be enough time. Most observers say that happens by September/October. If it's too late, we all end up with a no-deal Brexit anyway. But since we will certainly end up with a no-deal Brexit if we collapse the talks, the risk that we might end up with a no-deal Brexit if we don't collapse the talks is not a reason to collapse the talks.

Basically, as I see it, there is no scenario in which it's in the EU's interests to stop talking. So they won't.

Leroy42

On that Daniel Hannon article, isn't he the guy that repeatedly claimed during the ref that the UK would not be leaving the SM?

But the article itself is an amazing piece of spin. Brexit is not going the way it was supposed to because Labour are not offering anything better? Thats it.

Even his description of what the hoped outcome was

a Brexit that left intact a number of our existing arrangements, while allowing us to leave the aspects of the EU which all sides could agree were harmful, such as the agricultural and fisheries policies and the common external tariff.

So basically the cake and eat it approach. They really did think, and thus campaigned for leave, on the basis that they would get to keep all the good stuff but simply opt out of all the other stuff.

The article is, though I don't think it was never meant this way, to be a perfect encapsulation of the issue facing both the Tory's and the Brexiteers as a whole.

https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2018/05/daniel-hannan-for-partisan-advantage-labour-demands-a-worst-of-all-worlds-brexit.html

Seth Brundle

Peregrinus wrote: »

If by EU-27 you mean the EU member states unanimously agreeing to the withdrawal of the A50 notice, yeah, you're right.

Does Ireland get to hold a referendum if it comes to this?

Peregrinus

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does Ireland get to hold a referendum if it comes to this?

If it's judged to require a Treaty amendment, possibly. And, if the treaty amendment increases the legal competence of the Union, certainly.

Ironically, if it requires a Treaty change, the UK also gets a referendum, since this is an obligation they imposed on themselves with the European Union Act 2011.

J Mysterio

gooch2k9 wrote: »

What's the likelihood of the talks collapsing next month? I've seen plenty of articles over the last two weeks stating they need progress by June, and only this morning May has divided the cabinet to evaluate two options that the EU have already said aren't acceptable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-44077847

I think the chances are very high indeed, as neatly encapsulated by you. The UK PM and cabinet are all over the place - can't agree, won't agree. They are conducting brainstorming sessions and focus groups on proposals they have been told will be rejected. They have been seperated(!) even - to stem the bad blood and get something done? It's too late for this, they need to be working on the finer details of an agreed approach.

Awful leadership again from a terrible PM and a woeful cabinet.

Leroy42

JRM made a statement in an interview yesterday that it is the right of a sovereign nation to have an open border if it so wishes, he was talking on the context of a NI border.

As a factual statement, this is correct is it not?

So the UK can rightfully claim that the border will be raised by the EU?

sink

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM made a statement in an interview yesterday that it is the right of a sovereign nation to have an open border if it so wishes, he was talking on the context of a NI border.

As a factual statement, this is correct is it not?

So the UK can rightfully claim that the border will be raised by the EU?

Under WTO MFN rules the same border restrictions must apply to all WTO members outside of a comprehensive FTA. So if the UK wishes to have an open border with the EU in Ireland without mutual agreement, it must also open all it's ports to all WTO members goods. That would decimate British industries, particularly in manufacturing and agriculture. Plus this would not have to be reciprocated by other WTO members, making it much harder to strike trade deals which would benefit British exporters.

On the other side of the border, EU member states are legally bound by treaty to enforce customs and single market rules on external imports. To change this would require a treaty change that would have to be supported by all 27 member states, which is next to impossible. So there is no option for Ireland and the EU other than to enforce border controls.

These are the realities on the ground, Britain is aware of them (even if some MP's are wilfully ignorant). The onus is on them to find a way to maintain an open border taking into account these realities. They can attempt to ignore reality and then blame Ireland/EU when reality slaps them in the face, but only the ignorant would fall for it.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM made a statement in an interview yesterday that it is the right of a sovereign nation to have an open border if it so wishes, he was talking on the context of a NI border.

So the UK is going to take control of its borders by abandoning control of its borders. Cool.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM made a statement in an interview yesterday that it is the right of a sovereign nation to have an open border if it so wishes, he was talking on the context of a NI border.

As a factual statement, this is correct is it not?

So the UK can rightfully claim that the border will be raised by the EU?

Except that it goes counter to their argument of a) controlling immigration and b) while true in theory will not work under WTO terms as one border left open means all borders needs to be left open for imports.

Then again I've seen people seriously stating UK should leave WTO as it's to limiting for what they want to do; sometimes I despair for humanity.

Leroy42

So if they have an open border in NI they would have to have an open border everywhere? Is that the case?

There is little risk of the 'wrong stuff' coming through a EU controlled border, or even a non border, as UK can rely on the EU (through Ireland) to ensure that only goods that meet EU standards arrive in Ireland and thus can move into NI.

In addition, since NI is separated from the mainland, any goods will have to come through some port in Britain and so can be checked there. This of course would increase the hassle of NI firms, but the UK could implement a pre-approved scheme for NI based exporters to give them an open customs journey into Britain.

They would still control the borders, both in terms of goods and people. They simply allow Ireland to manage it on their behalf and don't worry about it.

A EU citizen could travel to Ireland, into NI, but they would be stopped at Holyhead or Liverpool or whenever even if they come from NI. So the only issue is them staying in NI. But they won't be able to work, or claim any benefits, so the numbers will be relatively small

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

So if they have an open border in NI they would have to have an open border everywhere? Is that the case?

Well for goods they would need to offer the same rules for all countries in WTO which means no checks for Ireland then no checks for anyone else. That's the part which UK politicians gloss over every time when they insist they will not control the border in NI. Well yes; technically you can do that but then you need to offer unlimited import from China, Brazil, USA etc. as well without any controls...

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

A EU citizen could travel to Ireland, into NI, but they would be stopped at Holyhead or Liverpool or whenever even if they come from NI. So the only issue is them staying in NI. But they won't be able to work, or claim any benefits, so the numbers will be relatively small

This is not the issue - they were never worried about immigration, and they have no plans (even in a Hard Brexit) to control immigration at the border. They plan to outsource immigration control to landlords, employers and benefits offices. To work, rent or collect any sort of welfare, you'll have to prove you are legal (which is going to drive the little Englanders who voted for Brexit insane, being asked for "papers, please" every week, but anyhoo).

The issue is goods. Under WTO rules, if goods can cross the Irish border unchecked without tariffs, they can cross any UK border from any WTO country without tariffs. Like from China into Felixstowe.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is little risk of the 'wrong stuff' coming through a EU controlled border, or even a non border, as UK can rely on the EU (through Ireland) to ensure that only goods that meet EU standards arrive in Ireland and thus can move into NI.

In addition, since NI is separated from the mainland, any goods will have to come through some port in Britain and so can be checked there. This of course would increase the hassle of NI firms, but the UK could implement a pre-approved scheme for NI based exporters to give them an open customs journey into Britain.

If it is a sealed container marked for transit to the UK (as a country outside the SM) there will be no customs check at the Irish point of entry for goods going to NI. If the Irish border is not controlled, these goods can enter the UK unchecked.

There is of course the option of customs checks between NI and Britain, the idea of which hasn't gone down too well with the Unionists keeping May in office.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

JRM made a statement in an interview yesterday that it is the right of a sovereign nation to have an open border if it so wishes, he was talking on the context of a NI border.

As a factual statement, this is correct is it not?

So the UK can rightfully claim that the border will be raised by the EU?

Well, the UK as a sovereign nation has the right to pass a law exempting brown-eyed persons from income tax, but that doesn't mean they would ever do it.

There are a number of constraints on the UK's ability to have the Irish border unilaterally open, so to speak.

The first has already been pointed to by several posters: WTO requirements.

The second has been mentioned by Zub: the rhetoric of Brexit about "regaining control" of borders. If the Irish border is uncontrolled, then there is little point in having controls at UK ports and airports, since anything which would be impeded by those controls can avoid them by the simple expedient of routing through Ireland. A chain with one link missing is not a 99% effective chain; it's a useless chain. Even the more slow-witted Brexiters will grasp this soon enough.

And the third is the logic of Brexit (in so far as Brexit has any logic). Remember that wonderful network of trade deals that the UK was going to nimbly negotiate with China, North Korea and countries yet to be discovered under the sea? No country is going to have the remotest interest in negotiating a trade deal, making concessions, etc in order to secure improved access for their exports to UK markets when their exports are unilaterally granted uncontrolled access to UK markets, free of any kind of tariff, regulation or restriction, provided only they are routed through Ireland. So a decision to leave the Irish border uncontrolled is a decision to abandon one of the key planks of Brexit, and to deprive Liam Fox of his entire reason for living.

Plus, of course, fourth: no border deal, no withdrawal agreement. Rees-Moggs pretends to regard this with equanimity, but we have discussed it often enough on this board to know that, for the UK, it's an appalling prospect.

In a nutshell, what Rees-Mogg is saying is that the UK, as a sovereign state, is free to shoot itself in the face rather than stand over the commitments it has already made in relation to the Irish border. Is he right? Possibly, but it hardly matters.

EdgeCase

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does Ireland get to hold a referendum if it comes to this?

Only if an amendment is in conflict with the constitution.
Ireland doesn't hold referenda for populist reasons. It's for a technical reason, where constitutional changes are needed.

An Ciarraioch

Farage is addressing a DUP dinner tonight, and while he has ruled out joining them, that could well change in the event of a snap election. Of course, Enoch Powell was a notable precedent, but would a unionist constituency really return him?

https://mobile.twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/994879013834420225