Brexit discussion thread IV

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

It's not a border poll. The paradox is if NI accepted the EU proposal it would solidify NI's position in its present political status as part of the Union.

Yes. Although that is not, obviously, how the DUP are spinning it.

kunst nugget

Water John wrote: »

It's not a border poll. The paradox is if NI accepted the EU proposal it would solidify NI's position in its present political status as part of the Union.

I said the words 'effectively a border poll'. If you have a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining in the single market with the Republic and not partaking in the same sort of Brexit as the rest of the UK, are you telling me that it would not be seen as a border poll, in essence, by the Unionists in the north?

Rhineshark

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think it's a risk you need to worry too much about. An opinion poll last year showed that just 11% favoured leaving the EU. Earlier this year Nigel Farage visited Ireland, spoke to the media and addressed a public meeting to promote the idea of "Irexit", after which a repeat of the poll, by the same polling company, showed that support for leaving had fallen to 7%. Mr Farage hasn't been back since.

I did not know that last little tidbit! Snigger.

Farage was a total arrogant idiot on that. And I recall the note on the ad about it included something about how this was an Irexiter safe space and only pro-Irexiters should go. That got the michael well and truly extracted from it. And there's too many Michaels in Ireland to be removing them all from the already-tiny support base

FrancieBrady

kunst nugget wrote: »

I said the words 'effectively a border poll'. If you have a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining in the single market with the Republic and not partaking in the same sort of Brexit as the rest of the UK, are you telling me that it would not be seen as a border poll, in essence, by the Unionists in the north?

We have to rid ourselves of the fear of upsetting the DUP and fulfil our mandate to look after the interests of those who identify as Irish and others who wish to remain.

The risks are getting to high.

Water John

Unionists of course will spin it. Not all will and certainly not all would fall for that line. 52% I'll settle for.

breatheme

kunst nugget wrote: »

I said the words 'effectively a border poll'. If you have a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining in the single market with the Republic and not partaking in the same sort of Brexit as the rest of the UK, are you telling me that it would not be seen as a border poll, in essence, by the Unionists in the north?

I mean if that's the will of the people?

NI would still be a constitutional part of the UK, and they would still use the pound, and they would still get their £££££ from London. They would still have their seats in Westminster. And they would still have a right to British nationality. They can try to spin it into a border poll, but it isn't.

trellheim

Late to the party but I saw a tweet this morning that many people voted Leave to annoy David Cameron.

Imreoir2

breatheme wrote: »

Maybe there should be a referendum held only in NI, to see if they would rather remain in the CU/SM or out with the UK. At this point it might be the only thing that would make the DUP budge.

The DUP and UK government have trotted out the line that treating NI differently to the rest of the UK under a backstop would undermine NI's consittutional position within the UK and as such would be against the terms of the GFA. It should be pointed out that the GFA does not guarentee no change to NI's constitutional status, merely that any change must have the consent of the people of NI.

Perhaps we should accept their argument that the backstop would entail a change in NI's constitutional status, point to the remain vote in NI and the polls that show majority suport for NI remaining within the CU/SM, and call for a referendum under the terms of the GFA to allow the backstop to apply to NI.

LuckyLloyd

AwaitYourReply wrote: »

I wonder how Garret Fitzgerald or Charlie Haughey would have handled things if either of them were in power today?

No - one can tell for sure, but if you've been reading the released state papers every Christmas for the last couple of years it should indicate that the likes of Fitzgerald and Haughey were well able to hold and drive forward difficult positions disliked by the British Government of the day.

LuckyLloyd

swampgas wrote: »

The benefits of EU membership have become so normal and routine, and invisible, that some posters seem to have developed the same "Brexit Blindness" that is affecting so many in the UK.

But only a small minority, it is important to note. Polling on the issue demonstrates less than 15% of the Irish electorate are even open to leaving the EU and we don't have the type of negative anti EU propaganda constantly spread across our media. In this sense, our democratic process around referendums has been quite positive. Nice and Lisbon, while embarrassing to some, allowed us to have serious checkpoints about our relationship with the EU and how we felt about it. The message has been clear: 'don't take us for granted but overall we want to be part of this thing'.

We took our medicine from 2009 and - in hindsight - the decision to tow the line and deal with the situation in the orderly approved fashion we did was the right one.

This Brexit process has only heightened a sense of enlightened nationalism among the electorate imo. We have our interests, we have an intention to stand up for them but we recognize that those interests are aided by being part of a large successful club. The UK is highlighted as a fractured entity with numerous problems looming down the tracks no matter what the outcome of Brexit. For those reasons support for the EU is as high as it as ever been. We can't let the odd contrarian voice obfuscate that.

Rhineshark

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Ah but whatabout will of the people? We say, tripping them over their own rhetoric

Somehow it's only the will of the people if it's the same will as two years ago and thus we should not find out in case it isn't because if course it is and you can't believe polls so best not to ask. The will of the NI people is irrelevant because they were vastly outnumbered and majority rules, which is hugely convenient to the largest country which wanted to leave most.

They seem quite fine with the cognitive dissonance at all levels, as much as I would like to think that logic was playing any role in all this.

Spook_ie

breatheme wrote: »

I mean if that's the will of the people?

NI would still be a constitutional part of the UK, and they would still use the pound, and they would still get their £££££ from London. They would still have their seats in Westminster. And they would still have a right to British nationality. They can try to spin it into a border poll, but it isn't.

But just how constitutional would it be having a border between Wales and England or Scotland and England, that's effectively what you are proposing between NI and England, NI and Wales and NI and Scotland

eire4

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU isn't offering a similar deal for Wales or London. They've made it very clear that it's for NI only, on account of particular considerations that relate only to NI.

What about Scotland? Well, the EU is also not offering a similar deal for Scotland. But the Scots will be conscious that if they do have a second Indyref and leave the UK, they can (re)join the EU. And the harder and crashier the Brexit, the more that will look to the Scots like a quite good idea. But all this is true regardless of what happens in NI.

Yes I think we will be seeing a second Scottish independence vote at some point post Brexit. Sooner too I think if it comes to a no deal situation next year.

swampgas

trellheim wrote: »

Late to the party but I saw a tweet this morning that many people voted Leave to annoy David Cameron.

This is always a risk with a referendum; that the electorate will use it as a protest vote against the government, we know this from experience here in Ireland.

I have read that David Cameron felt he would have no choice but to resign if the referendum went against him, but also felt that couldn't say this before the referendum in case it encouraged those voters who really didn't like him to vote for Brexit as a way of forcing him out of office.

And has been covered here before, and from talking to friends and family in England, many people didn't actually fully realise that their protest vote would actually matter; they were so used to FPTP elections in safe seats where voting against the dominant party seemed futile that they didn't realise that every vote, protest or not, had equal weight.

Never mind the riskiness of holding the referendum after so many years of austerity policies by his own government, which must have increased the number of people voting in protest quite significantly.

Perhaps he misjudged the level of his own popularity. He wouldn't be the first.

Water John

What Constitution are you referring to? UK doesn't have a written one. This is about having diff tax status. Not a problem, look at Tax free Industrial Zones, Duty Free Airports.
Correct Swampgas, it was the years of austerity that had people really p****d off. I think there was some study on that released yesterday.

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

Never mind the riskiness of holding the referendum after so many years of austerity policies by his own govermnment, which must have increased number of people voting in protest quite significantly.

This, I think, is a very important point.

There was no doubt that many people had (are) suffered due to the austerity. Just like in our own case, people will always look to blame others for the issues. No doubt EU played a part in our problems, but a large portion of it came down to how the country was run (that is very different that saying it was our fault).

I think, had you asked people around the time of the bailouts etc what they though of the EU the negative response would have been quite large.

We have, on the whole, quite a positive political and media relationship with the EU. Certainly it is far different than the portrayal in the UK.

So it is no surprise that a large portion of the UK would see austerity as, in large part, the fault of the EU. This was gleefully pushed by the political parties as it avoided them taking any responsibility.

So the voters felt that getting rid of the EU would solve the problem, or at least give it a chance.

Taytoland

kunst nugget wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

It's not a border poll. The paradox is if NI accepted the EU proposal it would solidify NI's position in its present political status as part of the Union.

I said the words 'effectively a border poll'. If you have a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining in the single market with the Republic and not partaking in the same sort of Brexit as the rest of the UK, are you telling me that it would not be seen as a border poll, in essence, by the Unionists in the north?

Indeed. The number one aim for any Prime Minister is to defend and protect the Union. The Union has to be the number priority. Everyone knows my view on the EU but if it meant a CU of sort to defend the Union then so be it. The Union is so much more important in all regards.

FrancieBrady

Taytoland wrote: »

Indeed. The number one aim for any Prime Minister is to defend and protect the Union. The Union has to be the number priority. Everyone knows my view on the EU but if it meant a CU of sort to defend the Union then so be it. The Union is so much more important in all regards.

Well then you cannot mind Ireland vetoing any cozy deal the UK gets if it is not in our best interests.

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

This, I think, is a very important point.

There was no doubt that many people had (are) suffered due to the austerity. Just like in our own case, people will always look to blame others for the issues. No doubt EU played a part in our problems, but a large portion of it came down to how the country was run (that is very different that saying it was our fault).

I think, had you asked people around the time of the bailouts etc what they though of the EU the negative response would have been quite large.

We have, on the whole, quite a positive political and media relationship with the EU. Certainly it is far different than the portrayal in the UK.

So it is no surprise that a large portion of the UK would see austerity as, in large part, the fault of the EU. This was gleefully pushed by the political parties as it avoided them taking any responsibility.

So the voters felt that getting rid of the EU would solve the problem, or at least give it a chance.

It makes me wonder how anyone in the UK would even begin to undo all the damage to the EU's image that has been done in the UK for decades, and is still being done today.

Just how big a mountain would the British government have to climb to credibly project any kind of positivity about the EU to a major chunk of the electorate? Between the press and themselves, they have painted themselves into one hell of a corner, the best they managed during the referendum campaign was that however bad the EU might be, leaving would be worse. It was hardly an enthusiastic "Yes we can!", was it?

It's one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about reaching a deal. I'm not sure enough of the country can be persuaded to buy into the EU as their future political and spiritual home.

judeboy101

swampgas wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

This, I think, is a very important point.

There was no doubt that many people had (are) suffered due to the austerity. Just like in our own case, people will always look to blame others for the issues. No doubt EU played a part in our problems, but a large portion of it came down to how the country was run (that is very different that saying it was our fault).

I think, had you asked people around the time of the bailouts etc what they though of the EU the negative response would have been quite large.

We have, on the whole, quite a positive political and media relationship with the EU. Certainly it is far different than the portrayal in the UK.

So it is no surprise that a large portion of the UK would see austerity as, in large part, the fault of the EU. This was gleefully pushed by the political parties as it avoided them taking any responsibility.

So the voters felt that getting rid of the EU would solve the problem, or at least give it a chance.

It makes me wonder how anyone in the UK would even begin to undo all the damage to the EU's image that has been done in the UK for decades, and is still being done today.

Just how big a mountain would the British government have to climb to credibly project any kind of positivity about the EU to a major chunk of the electorate? Between the press and themselves, they have painted themselves into one hell of a corner, the best they managed during the referendum campaign was that however bad the EU might be, leaving would be worse. It was hardly an enthusiastic "Yes we can!", was it?

It's one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about reaching a deal. I'm not sure enough of the country can be persuaded to buy into the EU as their future political and spiritual home.

They managed to start a war, invade a country and plunge an entire region into on going chaos on the back of made up intelligence. They have the mother of all brass necks. Rolling back on brexit would be Childs play compared to how the UK parliament has "forgotten" about the Iraq war.

cml387

Mark Carney has warned about a no deal Brexit, and the usual suspects have immediately criticised him.

Now when the CBI, most all of the large car manufacturers, food suppliers and the foreign secretary have all warned about such an eventuality you might think that the penny has dropped.

I sometimes think that Jacob Rees Mogg has the touch of the De Valera's about him. All he has to do is look into his heart to know the will of the British people.

Infini

swampgas wrote: »

It makes me wonder how anyone in the UK would even begin to undo all the damage to the EU's image that has been done in the UK for decades, and is still being done today.

Well for starters it would help if the more regressive element's of their press were forced to have some proper standards for one, none of this Daily Fail BS of publishing twisted distorted information as fact. Opinion's are one thing that's fine but when several of these publications have been allowed to push such a distorted and deceptive agenda they should be taken to task and fined heavily for publishing such BS.

swampgas

Infini wrote: »

Well for starters it would help if the more regressive element's of their press were forced to have some proper standards for one, none of this Daily Fail BS of publishing twisted distorted information as fact. Opinion's are one thing that's fine but when several of these publications have been allowed to push such a distorted and deceptive agenda they should be taken to task and fined heavily for publishing such BS.

Agreed, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. The press barons have too much power, and have the political parties running scared a lot of the time. As I remember it, the Tory party killed off any meaningful reform that might have followed from the Leveson Inquiry.

Unless there is a major change of ownership and/or editorial direction in the British press, I can't see anything changing in time to stop a no-deal Brexit.

Imreoir2

An interesting take on the current situation re the backstop from the pro-Brexit viewpoint:
https://brexitcentral.com/concerned-proposed-withdrawal-agreement/

...Brexit-supporters would probably prefer the very different model of a “third country” FTA. But Tusk’s offer of a generous FTA comes with a condition: it can only apply to Great Britain – Northern Ireland would remain effectively a part of the EU Single Market and Customs Union, insofar as that was required to avoid a “hard border” on the island of Ireland. The Single Market would be “defended” by an economic border in the Irish Sea.

No Brexit supporters (and few Remain supporters) are willing to accept this economic dismemberment of the Union. Indeed it may be said that the recent amendment to the Trade Bill promoted by the European Research Group would make it illegal. But that amendment does not prevent the Government signing the “Ireland clause” in the Withdrawal Agreement. It merely removes the option of an FTA between Great Britain and the EU, making a Norway-style Association Agreement the only option on offer from the EU that Mrs May can legally accept. (Indeed, the “Ireland clause”, if signed, would also remove the possibility of an FTA between the UK and any other country, at least without the prior approval of the EU that an acceptable method of “defending” the Single Market had been found that allowed Northern Ireland to be economically part of the UK. With the “Ireland clause” in place, the Government could only offer other countries an FTA with Great Britain. It is also argued by some that the “Ireland clause” would be a potential barrier to the UK’s resuming its seat at the World Trade Organisation, since the UK, though a state, would not be a trading unit – only Great Britain would be that). The “Ireland clause” also means that, once the Withdrawal Agreement is ratified, we could not legally revert to “WTO terms” as a United Kingdom, since we would still be bound by the “backstop”.

And closing down the possibility of a “third country” FTA seems the Government’s intention as well. In her speech in Belfast on 20th July, Theresa May went out of her way to pour cold water on the feasibility of any “technological” solution to the Irish question, making her drive for regulatory alignment the only option open to her. This was reckless and unnecessary. Her Brexit really is now “my way or the highway”.

This is why it is vital that those who support a vision of future trading relations based on an FTA between the EU and the UK as a whole (and indeed those who would be happy with “WTO terms”) work to ensure that the Government does not sign a Withdrawal Agreement that includes the “Ireland clause” as currently contemplated: it would make both an FTA and “WTO terms” legally impossible for the UK as a whole. It is also of course why the EU is so thoroughly focused on getting it signed. The trap only closes when it is. ...

... For Brexit supporters, a better route would be to seek to accept the generous FTA offered by Mr Tusk, while insisting that it cover the whole UK and asking that the resolution of the Irish border issues be removed from the Withdrawal Agreement (except in terms of a declaration of shared intent) and remitted to a separate strand of the talks, perhaps involving bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and their technical experts. There is a border on the island of Ireland today and it is collaboratively policed to prevent the smuggling of various goods, such as diesel and illicit drugs. Given the very small volume (by value) of goods that cross the border compared to total EU trade, it should be possible to build on existing co-operation and electronic reporting to resolve all issues in a way that defends the EU Single Market while allowing the land border to remain invisible.

In short it seems that the whole argument boils down to an insistance that some solution must be possible without suggesting anything more tangible than "technical solutions" ie the same old mantra.
It also suggests that promises of good intent over the border should be good enough for Ireland and the EU, while insisting on the right to walk away from those promises should it suit the UK to do so.

Leroy42

I think the best that can be hoped for now, and what I expect to happen, is a transition period prior to crash out.

It gives both sides more time to prepare, will place the clock ticking on countdown to December 2020 instead of this phony negotiation phase which the UK (and possibly the EU, but certainly the UK) have not entered into with any sense of being prepared to actual negotiate.

There is simply not the appetite, that I can work out, of a desire to reverse A50, and as such with May firmly painting herself into a corner both with the EU and domestically, I cannot see a soft brexit being a runner.

Water John

It quite depends on the Brexiteers and how many are diehards a la JRM when it comes down to it. That's the leeway May has.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the best that can be hoped for now, and what I expect to happen, is a transition period prior to crash out.

Transition only applies to the implementation of an agreed deal. If it is a crash out, it kicks in immediately on Brexit.

That will all be clear in plenty of time for the EU to put up the borders. How the UK copes is their problem.

Folkstonian

First Up wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the best that can be hoped for now, and what I expect to happen, is a transition period prior to crash out.

Transition only applies to the implementation of an agreed deal. If it is a crash out, it kicks in immediately on Brexit.

That will all be clear in plenty of time for the EU to put up the borders. How the UK copes is their problem.

Not sure I share your certainty there.

‘Frontex’ - the EU’s border agency - exists only to maintain the integrity of external borders in the Schengen area. It would need rapid and extensive treaty changes for its remit to be extended to Ireland.

Moreover, it isn’t more of an administrative thing anyway. It doesn’t have the ability to hurriedly construct several hundred kilometres of physical border infrastructure, nor does it have its own personnel to man however many customs stations there would need to be at road and rail crossing points.

The EU isn’t a sovereign state and there aren’t a few thousand EU border police officers waiting on standby to be parachuted into any trouble spot that may emerge.

It will be as difficult for the EU as it will be for Britain to effectively police any hard border that needs creating.

CelticRambler

Imreoir2 wrote: »

An interesting take on the current situation re the backstop from the pro-Brexit viewpoint:

There is a border on the island of Ireland today ...

Funny how the Brexiteers regularly cite this line, using VAT and other intra-EU transactions to bolster their argument, but somehow forget that there is also an existing, operational border between NI and GB in respect of matters that are probably more representative of the future EU-BrexitUK relationship.

First Up

Folkstonian wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the best that can be hoped for now, and what I expect to happen, is a transition period prior to crash out.

Transition only applies to the implementation of an agreed deal. If it is a crash out, it kicks in immediately on Brexit.

That will all be clear in plenty of time for the EU to put up the borders. How the UK copes is their problem.

Not sure I share your certainty there.

‘Frontex’ - the EU’s border agency - exists only to maintain the integrity of external borders in the Schengen area. It would need rapid and extensive treaty changes for its remit to be extended to Ireland.

Moreover, it isn’t more of an administrative thing anyway. It doesn’t have the ability to hurriedly construct several hundred kilometres of physical border infrastructure, nor does it have its own personnel to man however many customs stations there would need to be at road and rail crossing points.

The EU isn’t a sovereign state and there aren’t a few thousand EU border police officers waiting on standby to be parachuted into any trouble spot that may emerge.

It will be as difficult for the EU as it will be for Britain to effectively police any hard border that needs creating.

I'm not underestimating the operational challenges but I know that the EU has contingency plans covering every eventuality.