Brexit discussion thread IV

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I doubt very much that that would actually happen. When the North leaves the EU, it is true that Ireland could refuse to supply power, but I think we can agree that it is not in Ireland's interest to do so.

Will Ireland be permitted to sell electricity? I think so. All it means is that an agreement is in place whereby the UK agrees to abide by certain standards, which they almost certainly would since it is in their interest too.

It is not against EU law for a country to sell electricity to a third country.

But since the possibility exists, however remote, the UK will have some document outlining contingency plans. Doesn't mean it will happen though.

SFAIK there is no law banning the sale of electicity outside the SEM. And I agree the State is unlikely to pass such a law.

But the actual decision about whether to sell electricity is not taken by the state, but by the electricity generator. It's a commercial decision. And it looks at more than just the price offered; it looks at the potential risks attendant on entering into a contract with an unlicensed counterparty who is outside the scope of the regulatory regime and is not answerable to its enforcement mechanisms.

Also the sale decision is being taken in a context where there is no possiblity of a counterbalancing purchase decision. Although the bulk of the electricity transmission over the interconnectors is from RoI to NI, interconnectors operate both ways (obviously) and at times the flow is in the other direction. In a no-deal Brexit I don't think it's going to be permitted to buy electricity from an unlicensed unregulated supplier, so the interconnector will operate one way only, and this changes the economics of the transaction.

My guess would be that there will be sales to NI, but the price will go up. And there's likely to be some interruption while a new basis for regulating the sale and the transmission is worked out and put in place, probably bilaterally between operators in RoI and NI, and while prices are agreed. The diesel generation is to cover that interruption.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

SFAIK there is no law banning the sale of electicity outside the SEM. And I agree the State is unlikely to pass such a law.

But the actual decision about whether to sell electricity is not taken by the state, but by the electricity generator. It's a commercial decision. And it looks at more than just the price offered; it looks at the potential risks attendant on entering into a contract with an unlicensed counterparty who is outside the scope of the regulatory regime and is not answerable to its enforcement mechanisms.

Also the sale decision is being taken in a context where there is no possiblity of a counterbalancing purchase decision. Although the bulk of the electricity transmission over the interconnectors is from RoI to NI, interconnectors operate both ways (obviously) and at times the flow is in the other direction. In a no-deal Brexit I don't think it's going to be permitted to buy electricity from an unlicensed unregulated supplier, so the interconnector will operate one way only, and this changes the economics of the transaction.

My guess would be that there will be sales to NI, but the price will go up. And there's likely to be some interruption while a new basis for regulating the sale and the transmission is worked out and put in place, probably bilaterally between operators in RoI and NI, and while prices are agreed. The diesel generation is to cover that interruption.

Again, I very much doubt there will be a need for diesel generators. On day one, even of a no-deal Brexit, the UK will still have legislation that complies with EU law. It is true that they could change that legislation but that would take time. If they did change legislation then the suppliers in the South would have to look at it and make a decision.

For a more realistic scenario, I would go with the The Institute of International and European Affairs who said in their document: "What does Brexit Mean for the Energy Sector in Ireland?"

Despite the Brexit vote, the all-island SEM is likely to continue for the medium term as it currently exists, without any major alteration or disruption – though of course there are potentially significant challenges to which we must be alert and granular issues to be worked through.

The SEM is clearly established in national law in both the UK and Ireland. It is not the result of laws transposed directly from any EU-level directive. Thus the SEM as a standalone product of UK-Irish bilateral co-operation would remain unaltered in its legal constitution by the UK’s departure, as it is primarily the product of concerted co-operation between the energy regulators and government ministers in Dublin and Belfast dating from the early 2000s.

While it would be within the UK Parliament’s powers to repeal any bilateral electricity market agreement with Ireland, this is unlikely due to the successes of the SEM, which has enjoyed sustained support from political and business sector authorities on both sides of the border, as well as from both Dublin and London.

Peregrinus

The IIEA briefing note was issued in 2016; I doubt that it contemplates a crash-out Brexit, which is the concern we are addressing here. I realise that, unless and until they change it, UK energy legislation would largely parallel our own EU-driven legislation, but in a crash-out Brexit the UK would still be outside the regulatory regime, outside the jurisdiction of the regulators, and without an agreement on equivalency or mutual recognition of standards or enforcement. The existing dispute resolution mechanisms (which ultimately depend on the oversight of the ECJ) will all disappear, and nobody is going to enter into a substantial commercial relationship which doesn't have a robust dispute resolution mechanism.

blinding

An Claidheamh wrote: »

And yet you and your ilk are are whinging about Ireland and the EU, together, "bullying" the Brits?

Now, it's the EU don't like Ireland?

You just can't accept Britain has no power any more.

Seeing the British trying to pretend they care about Irish economics and sovereignty is as pathetic as it sounds.
Lord Haw Haws, weirdos, illiterates, jingoists, thugs and idiots the whole lot of them

Here is hoping for a hard Brexit, poaching British business and a border poll.

Only way to put manners on our neighbours.

They are not a serious country and are in way over their heads.

I believe I am making it quite clear that the Brits don’t give two hoots about the 26 Counties . The 26 Counties is too small to be any great significance for Britain especially in the overall contexts of Brexit .

blinding

Strazdas wrote: »

I saw the interview. Very telling that Emily angrily told this nutcase he was churning out platitudes when he referred to "respecting the will of the people". It might just be starting to dawn on the mainstream media that they are dealing with a loony religious cult every time they invite a Brexiteer on.

52% Voted for Brexit . In the General election 84% of Voters voted for Parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Unless there is a General Election or a second referendum then Democracy will have to fall in Britain if Brexit is stopped despite the Vote of the People .

Calina

blinding wrote: »

An Claidheamh wrote: »

And yet you and your ilk are are whinging about Ireland and the EU, together, "bullying" the Brits?

Now, it's the EU don't like Ireland?

You just can't accept Britain has no power any more.

Seeing the British trying to pretend they care about Irish economics and sovereignty is as pathetic as it sounds.
Lord Haw Haws, weirdos, illiterates, jingoists, thugs and idiots the whole lot of them

Here is hoping for a hard Brexit, poaching British business and a border poll.

Only way to put manners on our neighbours.

They are not a serious country and are in way over their heads.

I believe I am making it quite clear that the Brits don’t give two hoots about the 26 Counties . The 26 Counties is too small to be any great significance for Britain especially in the overall contexts of Brexit .

Oh but they do. For now. As a means to an end to twist the EU's arm - they think. And the border plus the agreement they allegedly accepted in Dec means that Ireland matters a lot in the context of Brexit.

They might not care about the long term future of the Republic. But then they don't care about the long term future of NI or the rest of the UK either.

Bit cynical

Calina wrote: »

Oh but they do. For now. As a means to an end to twist the EU's arm - they think. And the border plus the agreement they allegedly accepted in Dec means that Ireland matters a lot in the context of Brexit.

I think Ireland is being used by both sides. On the one hand it is true that Britain can point to Ireland paying a price if a satisfactory deal from the UK's point of view is not met. On the other hand, issues such as needing to resolve the Irish border is being used by the EU to up the ante in negotiations, potentially also to the detriment of Ireland if no deal is made.

murphaph

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think Ireland is being used by both sides. On the one hand it is true that Britain can point to Ireland paying a price if a satisfactory deal from the UK's point of view is not met. On the other hand, issues such as needing to resolve the Irish border is being used by the EU to up the ante in negotiations, potentially also to the detriment of Ireland if no deal is made.

We asked the EU for this level of importance to be attached to "no hard border". Everything would be simpler for everyone if there was no politically sensitive land border involved. Nobody is glad about it IMO.

lawred2

blinding wrote: »

I believe I am making it quite clear that the Brits don’t give two hoots about the 26 Counties . The 26 Counties is too small to be any great significance for Britain especially in the overall contexts of Brexit .

Ireland. The name of the country you are looking for is Ireland. It seems to be eluding you.

EdgeCase

I think you're also forgetting that the EU has played a fundamental role in stabilising the Northern Ireland situation by providing the geopolitical backdrop that made a the current status quo possible and by both actively and passively supporting the GFA and whole range of cross border initiatives.

Bringing Europe towards peace and prosperity has always been not only at the heart of the European institutions but underlies their very foundation. It's fundamentally why they were originally established. It's extremely naive and frankly patronising to think that the EU institutions don't care about what happens with regard to Northern Ireland. It was one of the most active conflicts in post war Europe and its resolution had been seen as one of the great success stories of the EU and European multilateralism.

Not only that, but Ireland is a core and historically very engaged and supportive EU member and one of the co-founders of the Eurozone. It's a relatively small country but it's still very much part of the EU and it's abundantly clear that the EU is standing by its members in this crazy situation and doing precisely what it would be expected to do in a time of crisis.

Aspects of the British political establishment and the likes of Trump and his various hangers on and enablers have been trying to pick apart that European solidarity for both just jingositic reasons in the UK and probably for broader geopolitical reasons in the case of the US right who see Europe as a rising competitor global influencer and growing nexus of the global economy that they are seeking to damage and dismantle. That also alligns with the likes of Putin who just lives in the Cold War mentality and sees everything as a threat to Russia.

So if you take a bigger picture geopolitical view of this - that's pretty much where we are at. Brexit bubbling away, Trump talking about the EU as a "foe" and all sorts of what increasingly look like coordinated efforts to wreck decades of European interconnected solidarity by finding cracks and driving wedges into them. There are also most definitely libertarian big influencers who would rather see any regulatory powers dismantled. They've successfully decapitated the US agencies and they're rather keen to smash the European ones too.

I just see an attempt to undo most of the 20th century progressive economic moves and an attempt to take us back to the extreme, unregulated capitalism that existed at the turn of the 20th century before the Wall Street crash, the New Deal and the emergence or postwar Europe and modern social democratic ideologies.

So it would be beyond naive to think the EU doesn't care about the situation in Ireland and it's also extremely naive to assume Brexit is happening entirely out of context with a broader soft assault on the EU and Europe in general.

It's far easier to manage 27+ countries when you can play them off eachother than it is to attempt to influence and control them when they work as a bloc.

Zubeneschamali

blinding wrote: »

Unless there is a General Election or a second referendum then Democracy will have to fall in Britain if Brexit is stopped despite the Vote of the People .

The Referendum has no legal power at all, it was advisory.


The Tories deciding on a Hard Brexit is all on them, not the mystic Will of the People.

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

52% Voted for Brexit . In the General election 84% of Voters voted for Parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Unless there is a General Election or a second referendum then Democracy will have to fall in Britain if Brexit is stopped despite the Vote of the People .

Well, one could very well argue that people voted on the basis of £350m pw for the NHS, so unless and until the Brexiteers show how they will achieve that then are they going against the will of the people?

Leaving the EU could very well mean becoming a member of EEA. That is very much an option open to the UK and would deal with many of the issues that they face.

blinding

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Referendum has no legal power at all, it was advisory.


The Tories deciding on a Hard Brexit is all on them, not the mystic Will of the People.

Cameron spent £9 million of taxpayers money explaining what would happen if the Brexit Vote was passed . Brexit has to happen or democracy has fallen in Britain .

blinding

lawred2 wrote: »

Ireland. The name of the country you are looking for is Ireland. It seems to be eluding you.

Surely the 26 County Republic is the most accurate description .

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

Cameron spent £9 million of taxpayers money explaining what would happen if the Brexit Vote was passed . Brexit has to happen or democracy has fallen in Britain .

Well, one could very well argue that people voted on the basis of £350m pw for the NHS, so unless and until the Brexiteers show how they will achieve that then are they going against the will of the people?

Leaving the EU could very well mean becoming a member of EEA. That is very much an option open to the UK and would deal with many of the issues that they face.

kunst nugget

blinding wrote: »

Surely the 26 County Republic is the most accurate description .

The most accurate description would be the Republic of Ireland but you can just call it Ireland if you want. We'll know what you're talking about.

blinding

Leroy42 wrote: »

Well, one could very well argue that people voted on the basis of £350m pw for the NHS, so unless and until the Brexiteers show how they will achieve that then are they going against the will of the people?

Leaving the EU could very well mean becoming a member of EEA. That is very much an option open to the UK and would deal with many of the issues that they face.

Didn’t Theresa May come up with some Big Extra spending for the NHS awhile back . Was it not even more than £350 million .

blinding

kunst nugget wrote: »

The most accurate description would be the Republic of Ireland but you can just call it Ireland if you want. We'll know what you're talking about.

I prefer the 6 short ...= 26 Counties .

kunst nugget

blinding wrote: »

Didn’t Theresa May come up with some Big Extra spending for the NHS awhile back . Was it not even more than £350 million .

A figure of £394 million a week from an unspecified dividend based on a boost to the finances from Brexit - that the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies both say won't happen - and more taxes. So, basically from more taxes.

ancapailldorcha

blinding wrote: »

I prefer the 6 short ...= 26 Counties .

Enough semantics. The country is "Ireland".

Any more of this and you will receive another ban.

ambro25

blinding wrote: »

Didn’t Theresa May come up with some Big Extra spending for the NHS awhile back . Was it not even more than £350 million .

She certainly did: it’s to be funded from increased taxation in the U.K.

The £350m is a myth, always was. And has been clearly and unambiguously acknowledged as such since the referendum, not only by its architect, but most of the Brexit figureheads as well.

Likewise the ‘dividend’ from which Theresa May was going to finance that extra spending on the NHS. There isn’t going to be any.

madbeanman

One thing I find astounding about all of this is the lack of urgency with which both the Irish and British Governments are operating throughout the summer. I guess Brexit isnt as important as holidays? Although maybe they know something we dont. Perhaps both are true.

Leroy42

blinding wrote: »

Didn’t Theresa May come up with some Big Extra spending for the NHS awhile back . Was it not even more than £350 million .

No,

She came up with a made up based figure based on increases in unspecified taxes (despite 84% of the voters voting for parties that didn't say they would do that) and a brexit dividend that her own ministers have agreed is nonsense.

So again, unless Brexit delivers this £350m pw that people voted on, based on your own logic, then brexit has not been delivered.

As such each of the likes of JRM, Boris, Davies, Give, Fox et al are not following the will of the people.

Again, that is according to you.

And what about joining the EEA. THis would deliver Brexit. The question was "leave the EU". So that would be accomplished by joining the EEA. No need for these red lines at all. No need for hard borders.

That is unless, of course, you are cherry picking the type of Brexit you think was voted for, whilst leaving out the bits that you don't.

lawred2

kunst nugget wrote: »

The most accurate description would be the Republic of Ireland but you can just call it Ireland if you want. We'll know what you're talking about.

Actually the official name for the Republic of Ireland is Ireland.

So Ireland is 100% accurate.

trellheim

Getting back to the news

I see Carole Cadwallader is calling out Darren Grimes ( who I have to wonder as a patsy , must reread that section of Tim shipmans book )

fk sake ; thats bringing back up the whole Jo Cox murder thing for me , now I remember why I hate the Leavers so much.


Pedant note : the name of our country is Eire ( should be a fada on the E but no idea how to ) . Art 4 of Bunreacht. 'Ireland' is a translation of the official name

seamus

blinding wrote: »

Cameron spent £9 million of taxpayers money explaining what would happen if the Brexit Vote was passed . Brexit has to happen or democracy has fallen in Britain .

Unless they have a second referendum which overturns the first. Brexit doesn't "have to" happen to protect democracy.

Peregrinus

blinding wrote: »

52% Voted for Brexit . In the General election 84% of Voters voted for Parties that said they would respect the referendum result .

Unless there is a General Election or a second referendum then Democracy will have to fall in Britain if Brexit is stopped despite the Vote of the People .

"Respect the refererendum result" doesn't necessarily mean, though "deliver a hard Brexit".

The 52% who voted Leave in the referendum can't possibly be taken as voting for the particular version of of Brexit that May has targetted, since she didn't unveil it until well after the referendum.

Nor can the 84% of people who voted for Brexit-supporting parties in the election be taken as voting for May's vision of Brexit. Only those who actually voted for the Tories can even plausibly be argued to have done that, and that's just 42% a distinct minority.

Plus, of course, the Brexit which May is now pursuing is materially different from the one on which she fought the 2017 election, so if anything her mandate for that is even weaker.

I think the question the UK has been struggling with in the past two-and-a-bit years is, how do you "respect" the result of a purely advisory referendum which indicates support for a policy that hadn't been formed at the time the referendum was held?

The question arises, I think, because referendums are a relative novelty in the UK constitutional system, and they are still uncertain about exactly what role a referendum plays, what it can achieve and what status its outcome has.

These are not easy questions to answer, but we can dismiss without difficulty some fairly implausible answers:

1. A referendum result is not immutable. The people do not, by making a decision through referendum rather than in some other way, deprive themselves of the right to challenge, question, review or even reverse that decision through democratic means. It's the essence of democracy that the exercise of power is always subject to democratic review. Those who argue the contrary see a referendum not as a tool of democracy, but as a tool for terminating democracy, at least in relation to the issue addressed by the referendum. Those people are wrong.

2. A referendum doesn't answer questions not asked in the referendum. We understand this in Ireland, where referendums either insert specified text into the Constitution, or delete specified text from the Constitution. What this means for laws then has to be amplified by the Oireachtas through legislation, and worked out by the courts through cases, in the usual way. In the UK they are less clear about this, with many people arguing that a vote to leave the EU is also a vote not to participate in the EEA, not to participate in a Customs Union, etc, etc. Those people are wrong; such questions were not asked. It may be that the optimal way to implement Brexit is not to participate in the EEA etc; on the other hand, it may not. Either way, this is a matter of judgment, not an imperishable command which must be taken to be implicit in the referendum result.

3. An advisory referendum is not binding. This may seem obvious, but it needs to be stated. There's not much point in having a distinction between advisory and binding referendums, as the UK does, if you are going to treat them all as binding. Obviously an advisory referendum creates a political mandate. The strength of the mandate depends on the size of the majority and the clarity and appositeness of the referendum question, but it's always a very significant mandate which requires "respect". But "respect" for the result doesn't preclude or absolve Parliament from its constitutional role of deciding what to do about EU membership.

I agree that simply calling off Brexit without either a general election fought on that issue, or a further referendum, is politically unthinkable. Considering whether it should be called off, though, and seeking through democratic means to have it called off are not inconsistent with respect for the referendum result. If the mature conclusion, two years after the referendum, is that the best Brexit than can be achieved is damaging to the UK, allowing the people to express a view on whether Brexit should proceed on those terms, with the benefit of a clearer knowledge of what is involved, is not disrespectful of the original result.

Peregrinus

kunst nugget wrote: »

A figure of £394 million a week from an unspecified dividend based on a boost to the finances from Brexit - that the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies both say won't happen - and more taxes. So, basically from more taxes.

Borrowing. You forgot borrowing.

kunst nugget

Peregrinus wrote: »

Borrowing. You forgot borrowing.

Ssshhhh, don't tell anyone.

blinding

seamus wrote: »

Unless they have a second referendum which overturns the first. Brexit doesn't "have to" happen to protect democracy.

If Brexit is stopped with out a second Referendum or a General Election where the winning party of parties have a different manifesto that states clearly that they are now for remaining in the Eu , Democracy will have Fallen in Britain .