Brexit discussion thread IV

PeadarCo

Bit cynical wrote:

What Ireland can't veto is a crash out Brexit resulting in a hard border and economic damage for Ireland. All that is required for a crash out Brexit is for Barnier's team and the UK to fail to reach agreement by the deadline.

As has been mentioned Ireland can do that. There is the potential of a no agreement Brexit to cause so much trouble for the UK that they will have no other option but to agree a soft border.

It's high risk but if the UK thinks that the threat of no deal brexit is an advantage they severely under estimate there bargaining position. Especially when they already talking about stock piling food and medicine.

Leroy42

If the UK really thought that No deal was a viable option they would not be doing everything to try to avoid that very scenario.

In the last week we have ministers visiting governments around the EU to try to go over the head of Barnier as his stance is giving them only two choices.
They have floated the idea of "no deal by accident" as if it isn't entirely their construct that this is happening.
Made some threats as to the future relationship with the EU if the EU don't give them a deal.

All this is to try to wrangle something out of the EU.

The likes of Boris and JRM can bluster all they like about WTO and no deal, but the UK know a no deal is simply not something they can have.

Yes, it is going to hurt the EU, Ireland, France, Holland in particular, but there really is little we can do if the UK demand that EU basically disbands itself.

Junkyard Tom

kunst nugget wrote: »

If you have a referendum in Northern Ireland on remaining in the single market with the Republic

EdgeCase wrote: »

One reasonable approach would be a Northern Irish referendum on the customs union, rather than a border poll.

This is not likely because, unlike the north, Scotland is of great strategic value to London/England and they don't want Scotland saying 'well if norniron gets a vote we should too'.

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Apologies sorry. Just trying to give the facts.

It would be easier to give the facts if you first of all bothered to find out what they were, rather than simply making them up. The "less than 1%" figure is something you dreamed up yourself; it is not true either in the Council or in the Parliament.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But in effect, if say Ireland are unhappy with the agreement, they will simply veto the trade deal, which is actually the important part for the UK.

No. The Withdrawal Agrement will be signed, ratified and in force before the terms of the Trade deal are known. So Ireland couldn't get its way on the Withdrawal Agreement by threatening to veto the trade deal; at that point in the process there will be no trade deal to veto.

But the discussion is academic. The question of Ireland objecting to the withdrawal agreement is unlikely to arise, since our concerns are fully addressed in the EU's position on the withdrawal agreement, and the EU-27 has been solidly behind them.

HMG, as we know, have been tripping around Europe trying to get EU-27 national government on side to change the EU negotiating position and be more "flexible". I think that's a long shot, frankly, but never mind. A close reading of the newspaper reports and analysis will show that one thing they are not looking for "flexibility" on is the Irish backstop. (Also not citizens rights, or the divorce payment; they see no chance whatsoever of the EU changing its priorities, and they are not even trying.) What they want flexiblity on is the UK proposals for the long-term relationship - the "common customs area", free movement of goods but not of services, all the stuff in the Chequers proposals.

As I say, I don't think they are going to get the flexiblity but, if they did, it wouldn't bother Ireland. We'd be quite pleased, actually; it would suit us very well. Therefore, none of this even hints at a situation in which we would want to block a withdrawal agreement.

That situation would arise if there was a suggestion of dropping the Irish backstop. But there is no suggestion of that; the EU-27 have been absolutely in lockstep on it, and at this point the UK isn't even trying to get it dropped.

brickster69

Peregrinus wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Apologies sorry. Just trying to give the facts.

It would be easier to give the facts if you first of all bothered to find out what they were, rather than simply making them up.  The "less than 1%" figure is something you dreamed up yourself; it is not true either in the Council or in the Parliament.

My God, you do not even know the rules and conditions of the Veto do you ?

BonnieSituation

brickster69 wrote: »

My God, you do not even know the rules and conditions of the Veto do you ?

Do you know what a veto is?

brickster69

Yes, but do you know what percentage of any veto Ireland actually has apart from a FTA  ?

Silent Running

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, but do you know what percentage of any veto Ireland actually has apart from a FTA  ?

Instead of asking questions, why don't you display your knowledge of the situation. You might even educate us.

brickster69

Silent Running wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, but do you know what percentage of any veto Ireland actually has apart from a FTA  ?

Instead of asking questions, why don't you display your knowledge of the situation. You might even educate us.

No, but i will give you a clue. :D
A poster mentioned something earlier about the voting procedure within the UK regarding Brexit. Ironically it is the same as the EU's :D

Charles Babbage

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

This is not likely because, unlike the north, Scotland is of great strategic value to London/England and they don't want Scotland saying 'well if norniron gets a vote we should too'.

Which makes it all the stranger that they have no invoked the GFA and acquiesced in the backstop, as it would be based on circumstances different from Scotland.

Junkyard Tom

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Which makes it all the stranger that they have no invoked the GFA and acquiesced in the backstop, as it would be based on circumstances different from Scotland.

The DUP having the Tories by the balls.

ancapailldorcha

brickster69 wrote: »

My God, you do not even know the rules and conditions of the Veto do you ?

Final warning. Cut this out.

lawred2

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, but do you know what percentage of any veto Ireland actually has apart from a FTA  ?

Maybe I've picked your question up wrong..

Do you mean the proportional weight of the Irish vote in a qualified majority vote! That's two percent or so I'm sure.

As for percentage of a veto, that makes no sense. A veto is a veto and is a whole unit and is not portioned out. It only applies in case where unanimity is required. Which is still actually in a quite a few cases.

Like accession. Which is something the UK will have to deal with when it regains it senses.

Out of interest, the UK holds about 8% or so of the qualified majority vote. Are they getting to vote on their own withdrawal deal?

brickster69

Yeah sort of. For example someone mentioned the UK Brexit vote was based on population. Which of course England has by far the largest population and so the decision was based on that combined population vote.
Exact same thing with the EU veto system on the withdrawal deal. You could have 20 countries voting against something, but if the other has 65% of the combined EU population then that is the result.
I was taking the 1% as approx 4.5 million population of Ireland against 450 million of the EU (without the UK). no idea how it works on other matters but probably explains how that little province of Belgium was able to reject a FTA with some country.
There is also a legal possibility for the EU to conclude a FTA with a nation without a vote from members.

Out of interest, the UK holds about 8% or so of the qualified majority vote. Are they getting to vote on their own withdrawal deal?

No idea but i would not of thought so.

First Up

I think you should familiarise yourself on how the EU works. It is a union of sovereign nations, each of which takes its own decisions. It is not a unitary state where the votes of one outweighs the vote of another.

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

Understood, but Ireland can only veto the final deal, not the withdrawal agreement ie. FTA agreement ?

The withdrawal agreement would also include a Political declaration by the EU on what is expected moving forward.

The EU has said that it will not sign a withdrawl agreement if Ireland is not satisfied with the provisions on the Irish border. Several other EU leaders have also said that they will oppose a deal that does not address the Irish border issue properly. The new PM of Spain for example said that he would not support a treaty that Ireland was not happy with. The EU are united in this negioation in a way that the UK is not.

The EU parliment also has a veto on the withdrawl treaty. Guy Verhofstdat, the Brexit Coordinator for the EU Parliament, has siad that Parliament would veto any deal that does not resolve the Irish border issue.

You could suggest that a qualified majority of the European Council, and the EU Parliament will leave Ireland in the lurch over the border issue, despite repeated assurances, but I don't see much evidence to support this point of view. I hope Brexiteers have not convinced themselves that this will happen, they will be disapointed.

Rhineshark

Can anyone confirm what phase we're actually in?

I make it phase 1 still - the UK welched on the December Agreement and refused to transpose it into law which would certainly seem to nullify the agreement to progress to phase 2. Not to mention we're still discussing the withdrawal which also suggests that we never actually got to phase 2.

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

Understood, but Ireland can only veto the final deal, not the withdrawal agreement ie. FTA agreement ?

The withdrawal agreement would also include a Political declaration by the EU on what is expected moving forward.

The EU has said that it will not sign a withdrawl agreement if Ireland is not satisfied with the provisions on the Irish border. Several other EU leaders have also said that they will oppose a deal that does not address the Irish border issue properly. The new PM of Spain for example said that he would not support a treaty that Ireland was not happy with. The EU are united in this negioation in a way that the UK is not.

That is fair enough. I was just pointing out how the Veto system works in this case. If they do not accept and negotiate a withdrawal agreement that is totally another matter.;)

Imreoir2

Rhineshark wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what phase we're actually in?

I make it phase 1 still - the UK welched on the December Agreement and refused to transpose it into law which would certainly seem to nullify the agreement to progress to phase 2. Not to mention we're still discussing the withdrawal which also suggests that we never actually got to phase 2.

We are in phase one, part of phase one is dealing with phase two issues because there has to be a political declaration on the future relationship to go along with the withdrawl treaty. The EU agreed to allow talks on phase two issues after the december agreement, but phase one is still not concluded. Despite being desperate to move talks forward last decemebre, it seems that the UK did not put much of anything on the table until the White Paper came along. Perhaps being able to claim a victory in moving talks forward, in front of a domestic audience, was more important than actually engaging in those talks.

BonnieSituation

brickster69 wrote: »

Yes, but do you know what percentage of any veto Ireland actually has apart from a FTA  ?

SO that would be a no then.

Janey Mack

brickster69 wrote: »

No, but i will give you a clue. :D
A poster mentioned something earlier about the voting procedure within the UK regarding Brexit. Ironically it is the same as the EU's :D

In the Brexit Referendum 2 of 4 countries voted to exit and little over 50% of those who voted. In the EU the Withdrawal (like the Brexit Ref) can be passed by simple majority in the European Parliament. There the similarity ends.The E27 Council requires a Strong Qualified Majority so 20 of the 27 (I believe it must also represent 65% population - this is an ‘and’ not an ‘or’) must support it.

In order to block it being passed Ireland would require the support of 7 other
countries - a lesser amount if the opposing countries represent over 35% of the E27 population. We represent around 1% when the UK is included but they are excluded from this vote).

Source
https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/brexit_en

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Yeah sort of. For example someone mentioned the UK Brexit vote was based on population. Which of course England has by far the largest population and so the decision was based on that combined population vote.
Exact same thing with the EU veto system on the withdrawal deal. You could have 20 countries voting against something, but if the other has 65% of the combined EU population then that is the result.

This is wrong. For a qualified majority in the Council two tests must be met.

First, the proposal must have the support of 55% or more of the member states, with each member state having one vote, regardless of population. In some cases, including this one, the support of 72% of the member states voting is required. On the Brexit withdrawal agreement, obviously, Ireland will have 1 vote out of 27, which is much more than 1%. Given the 72% requirement, Ireland has 12.5% of the voting strength required to block agreement.

Secondly, the proposal must have the support of countries representing 65% of the population. Ireland has about 1% of the population of the EU-27, but that translates to 3% of what is needed for a blocking minority.

But, as previously pointed out, the question of a veto is unlikely to arise. Both the Council and the Commission would have to alter their positions radically before a situation might arise in which Ireland would wish to block a withdrawal agreement, and there is no sign of this happening. Even the UK government seems to have abandoned any hope that it will.

Peregrinus

Rhineshark wrote: »

Can anyone confirm what phase we're actually in?

I make it phase 1 still - the UK welched on the December Agreement and refused to transpose it into law which would certainly seem to nullify the agreement to progress to phase 2. Not to mention we're still discussing the withdrawal which also suggests that we never actually got to phase 2.

We're in phase 2. It was never a phase 1 requirement or expectation that the "sufficient agreement" arrived at would be immediately "transposed into law". This was never going to happen until the Withdrawal Agreement was concluded, which hasn't happened yet (and wasn't due to happen yet).

And, yes, we're still discussing the withdrawal agreement, but phase 2 was always going to involve discussion of the withdrawal agreement, so that doesn't mean we haven't got to phase 2.

Rhineshark

Peregrinus wrote: »

We're in phase 2. It was never a phase 1 requirement or expectation that the "sufficient agreement" arrived at would be immediately "transposed into law". This was never going to happen until the Withdrawal Agreement was concluded, which hasn't happened yet (and wasn't due to happen yet).

And, yes, we're still discussing the withdrawal agreement, but phase 2 was always going to involve discussion of the withdrawal agreement, so that doesn't mean we haven't got to phase 2.

Wasn't it concluded with the December Agreement though? Because the only reason it moved on was that agreement, which the Tories immediately backslid on. Given we had to go right back to relitigating the Irish border, which was very much a P1 issue, and it was obviously a poor faith agreement on the part of the UK, I ended up a bit fuzzy on that.

As a semi-amusing aside, a certain portion of Brexiters were arguing that not letting them have Galileo (as in Dec Agreement) was the EU reneging and didn't we know that the EU was bound by it but the UK wasn't...

McGiver

Janey Mack wrote: »

brickster69 wrote: »

No, but i will give you a clue. :D
A poster mentioned something earlier about the voting procedure within the UK regarding Brexit. Ironically it is the same as the EU's :D

In the Brexit Referendum 2 of 4 countries voted to exit and little over 50% of those who voted. In the EU the Withdrawal (like the Brexit Ref) can be passed by simple majority in the European Parliament. There the similarity ends.The E27 Council requires a Strong Qualified Majority so 20 of the 27 (I believe it must also represent 65% population - this is an ‘and’ not an ‘or’) must support it.

In order to block it being passed Ireland would require the support of 7 other
countries - a lesser amount if the opposing countries represent over 35% of the E27 population. We represent around 1% when the UK is included but they are excluded from this vote).

Source
https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/key-eu-policy-areas/brexit_en

This calculator comes in handy.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/voting-system/voting-calculator/
Select "Reinforced Qualified Majority" from the drop-down menu. Set UK as Abstain and then off you go playing different scenarios.

Peregrinus

Rhineshark wrote: »

Wasn't it concluded with the December Agreement though? Because the only reason it moved on was that agreement, which the Tories immediately backslid on. Given we had to go right back to relitigating the Irish border, which was very much a P1 issue, and it was obviously a poor faith agreement on the part of the UK, I ended up a bit fuzzy on that.

What was agreed in December was that the Withdrawal Agreement, when executed, would provide for an Irish backstop, a divorce payment, citizens rights. But the exact text that would be inserted to provide for these things was not agreed; just the general principles. Exact text has since been agreed for about 80% of the Withdrawal Agreement; discussions continue in relation to the rest (which includes the bits giving effect to the December agreement on the Irish border).

The UK hasn't repudiated the December agreement on the Irish border, but they are arguing for a different interpretation. They're not too clear on exactly what that interpretation is, and they haven't put forward any text, but they certgainly don't like the EU interpretation, and the text the EU has offered to implement it.

Leroy42

Seems JRM wasn't always so against the idea of a 2nd ref!

https://twitter.com/woodgnomology/status/963763403499229184

More details of it here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-latest-conservative-mp-explain-speeches-second-referendum-a8477686.html

In other news, Fox has come out with, IMO, quite an extraordinary interview in the times today. Says that there is now a 60-40 chance of no deal due the intransigence of the commission.

He also goes on to say that there is no point looking for quick trade deals, as his patients never asked for a quick fix but rather the right one. This is from the man that said it would be the quickest deal ever.

As Faisal Islam rightly points out in his tweets today, seems that it is Project Fear when the BoE claims that no deal is bad, but is simply setting out the obvious when the UK points out how bad a no deal would be to the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

In other news, Fox has come out with, IMO, quite an extraordinary interview in the times today. Says that there is now a 60-40 chance of no deal due the intransigence of the commission.

Times link https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/liam-fox-says-there-is-a-6040-chance-of-no-dealbrexit-lpsgm2gdf

So nothing's changed. UK still want red lines of cherries on the cake even though it's never been on the menu. And the way they are talking about the service charge you know there won't be a tip.

The UK is going "money talks, principles walk"
And the EU is "our defining characteristic is that we can afford principles "


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45073294

Mr Fox said if the EU did not like the proposal, they should "show us one that they can suggest that would be acceptable to us".
...

He added: "It's up to the EU27 to determine whether they want the EU Commission's ideological purity to be maintained at the expense of their real economies."

swampgas

Mr Fox said [...] "It's up to the EU27 to determine whether they want the EU Commission's ideological purity to be maintained at the expense of their real economies."

Fox has it backwards.

The "ideological purity" of the EU which he finds so offensive includes the concept of the Single Market, which is very much all about promoting "real economies".

The UK Brexiteers are the ones who want to maintain their ideological purity (red lines) despite it causing huge damage to their own "real economy".

I'm not sure whether he is blind to this though arrogance or idiocy, or perhaps some combination of the two.