Brexit discussion thread IV

EdgeCase

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought that it was the Secretary of State for NI who, alone, could trigger a referendum on UI, if the SoS for NI is of the opinion that it would be passed by a majority. If a referendum is to be put to the electorate of NI, then one would also be put to the electorate of Ireland at the same time. It would need to be passed by a simple majority by both electorates. The Assembly in NI is not necessarily involved.

Maybe I am wrong.

Secretary of state works for a government that's propped up by the DUP.
Whatever her personal views, theres no way they Tories are going to undermine the DUP at present. They do what they're told.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

Secretary of state works for a government that's propped up by the DUP.

Maybe, but it still does not mean the Assembly in NI is involved in a UI referendum.

LeinsterDub

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Re: the above.

If the Irish government want to be taken seriously, then they may tell the British and their media, they want a united Ireland referendum in the event of a hard Brexit.

The British establishment and media use these tricks because they know the Irish government of the past will always toe their line, not defend their own interests and blame SF.

Fine Gael and the Irish media have a history of deference to Britain.

Coveney and Varadkar still do all of the above at any opportunity.

Even if the British put up a hard border, FG or FF would never dare retaliate like join Schengen or let immigrants through and the British know that.

No, no absolutely no. If we even hint that we are using the border issue as a bridge towards a UI we'll lose the EU and the possible soft unionists who may jump ship and are required for a UI. Our best course of action is to allow the UK drive off the cliff and be seen as welcoming and accommodating to the unionists population after a nightmare brexit.

EdgeCase

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe, but it still does not mean the Assembly in NI is involved in a UI referendum.

Realistically however, she would have to take a sense of their being a demand for a referendum from somewhere, I would suspect that demand would be interpreted through the assembly members maybe passing a resolution to ask her to trigger one.

A clear overall majority of MLAs in favour of holding a referendum would surely give the SoS the political mandate to do so.

" the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

In theory however, she could call one in the morning if the mood took her. Or, turn a blind eye to 90% or MLAs in favour.

The problem with the legislation is it assumes the SoS is Mo Mowlam or similar. There are very few politicians of that level of independence and intellect out there and most people who get the Northern Ireland Office seem to spend their time counting down the days until they can get something else. It's like the Bishop sending Fr Ted to Craggy Island from a British political perspective. Very few people have ever taken the job to heart.

It always struck me as a very weak piece of legislation. It should have been something perhaps in the hands of an independent commission with international members.

Sam Russell

EdgeCase wrote: »

Realistically however, she would have to take a sense of their being a demand for a referendum from somewhere, I would suspect that demand would be interpreted through the assembly members maybe passing a resolution to ask her to trigger one.

A clear overall majority of MLAs in favour of holding a referendum would surely give the SoS the political mandate to do so.

" the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under paragraph 1 if at any time it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom and form part of a united Ireland."

In theory however, she could call one in the morning if the mood took her. Or, turn a blind eye to 90% or MLAs in favour.

The problem with the legislation is it assumes the SoS is Mo Mowlam or similar. There are very few politicians of that level of independence and intellect out there.

If there were a succession of opinion polls showing an ever increasing move towards a UI, say heading for a 60:40 split, then that would be sufficient. However, under current mismanagement, it would be unlikely even if such were to happen.

EdgeCase

Well it throws it into the whims or Westminster politics. Unfortunately, unless you've a big majority centrist government in the UK, it's unlikely to be a very unbiased decision.

In the current configuration of Westminster, flying elephants are more likely.

Infini

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No, no absolutely no. If we even hint that we are using the border issue as a bridge towards a UI we'll lose the EU and the possible soft unionists who may jump ship and are required for a UI. Our best course of action is to allow the UK drive off the cliff and be seen as welcoming and accommodating to the unionists population after a nightmare brexit.

Thing is we arent. The UI option is essentially the nuclear option for Brexit solutions, its not the first choice and certainly one anyone here would ha e as their first preference. We want the stopgap as its essentially maintaining the Status Quo to the best angle. The problems the stupidity of the DUP in all this as by rejecting it out of sheer ideology they make a Hard Border the only path and thus a UI the only solution.

Leroy42

This sums up the problem with giving any concessions to the UK.

"Chequers deal could be undone after Britain leaves EU, claims Gove" The Guardian.

So whatever the EU do to try to facilitate the UK it is pretty clear that the UK will not be held to any agreement and the EU will quickly find themselves having to give in on any number of small matters.

EdgeCase

The duplicity of this British government is just unbelievable. They’re destroying the UK’s credibility and will make it impossible to negotiate any deal with anyone.

They're treating the EU with utter contempt.

How could anyone do a trade deal with them?
They'll just double cross you and seem to operate on the basis of trying to pull a fast one, not grow a partnership.

Anthracite

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Fine Gael and the Irish media have a history of deference to Britain.

Coveney and Varadkar still do all of the above at any opportunity.

Even if the British put up a hard border, FG or FF would never dare retaliate like join Schengen or let immigrants through and the British know that.

I suspect that you would have to have been living in a cave to believe this based on the evidence of the events of the last year. FG have backed the UK right up against the wall of hard Brexit with their stance on the border.

Of course, if their hard line results in a hard Brexit and border, you can bet that SF and company will blame them for taking that hard line.

judeboy101

Anthracite wrote: »

I suspect that you would have to have been living in a cave to believe this based on the evidence of the events of the last year. FG have backed the UK right up against the wall of hard Brexit with their stance on the border.

Of course, if their hard line results in a hard Brexit and border, you can bet that SF and company will blame them for taking that hard line.

The phrase "the lady doth protest too much,me thinks" comes to mind when I think about FG and its relationship with the UK.

Imreoir2

EdgeCase wrote: »

Secretary of state works for a government that's propped up by the DUP.
Whatever her personal views, theres no way they Tories are going to undermine the DUP at present. They do what they're told.

The SoS is legally obliged to call a referendum if it looks like it might be passed. It's not up to them to decide if they think now is the right time or not, they have to regardless. A series of opinion polls showing support for unification, or nationalist parties winning an overall majority in an election will see a border poll triggered, there can be no ifs or buts.

In theory however, she could call one in the morning if the mood took her. Or, turn a blind eye to 90% or MLAs in favour.

They could, but that would likely see them in court for breach of their duty, the word "shall" is not to be messed with in law.

Sand

murphaph wrote: »

Barnier was quite clear that a single market for goods but not services (what Chequers essentially proposes) is impossible because most or many goods purchases include a good percentage of services built in. This is what happens when there's a single market.

The EU foresee a hard border between the UK and EU, as do I at this stage. The only issue left open is where that border runs in the case of Northern Ireland.

Yes, Chequers is not the basis for any credible agreement. So the infighting in the UK where the choice is described as being between Chequers and no-deal is the typical myopia we have seen from the UK political & media classes over the last two years. They cant seem to grasp that the Brexit the UK gets is not going to be decided in London.

The only choice facing the UK lawmakers in November on the current trajectory is between no deal and no deal. The British politicians and media need to very quickly start listening to what the EU is saying. Its far more important than the latest irrelevance from the ERG, JRM, Bojo or whatever other noise is emanating from the rear end of British politics.

Anthracite

judeboy101 wrote: »

The phrase "the lady doth protest too much,me thinks" comes to mind when I think about FG and its relationship with the UK.

That's a lovely line, but I'm not sure how it tallies with the evidence of our own eyes. I think you would want to be coming to recent events with a pretty strong SF/IRA filter to perceive the current coalition as going easy on the UK on the border.

Kermit.de.frog

EU to propose that British officials would carry out checks at UK ports on goods to NI according to tomorrow's FT

https://www.ft.com/content/0f19f070-b829-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

Secretary of state works for a government that's propped up by the DUP.
Whatever her personal views, theres no way they Tories are going to undermine the DUP at present. They do what they're told.

Payback's a bitch.

The DUP have a tiger by the tail. Once they aren't needed anymore it's popcorn time. Oddly enough a United Ireland is one way for them to avoid Tory Revenge when the Tories get a majority again.

FrancieBrady

Anthracite wrote: »

That's a lovely line, but I'm not sure how it tallies with the evidence of our own eyes. I think you would want to be coming to recent events with a pretty strong SF/IRA filter to perceive the current coalition as going easy on the UK on the border.

Well they have stepped aside once already. You don't have to have any type of blinkers on to fear that they might do it again.

Enzokk

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

EU to propose that British officials would carry out checks at UK ports on goods to NI according to tomorrow's FT

https://www.ft.com/content/0f19f070-b829-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

So that is the Irish Sea border then?

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

EU to propose that British officials would carry out checks at UK ports on goods to NI according to tomorrow's FT

https://www.ft.com/content/0f19f070-b829-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

Can you post a bit of the article?

Anthracite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well they have stepped aside once already. You don't have to have any type of blinkers on to fear that they might do it again.

I presume you are referring to not crashing the talks last year? A move which, had they carried it out, would have led to a hard border?

How would that be better than where we are now?

trellheim

in London 3 HOURS AGO Print this page41
Brussels is discussing with Dublin plans to put British officials — rather than EU inspectors — in charge of checking goods heading to Northern Ireland, as part of a bid to unlock stalled talks on the “backstop” plan for the Irish border.

Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, is looking at the option as part of a move to “de-dramatise” the row over the Irish border, which remains the biggest obstacle to a Brexit deal at a special summit scheduled for mid-November.

Theresa May, Britain’s prime minister, meets the leaders of the other 27 EU member states in the Austrian city of Salzburg this week to try to map a path to an eventual Brexit deal, as officials work behind the scenes to resolve the Northern Ireland issue.

Under the proposal British officials would carry out limited checks at ports on the UK mainland to reassure Brussels that goods heading to Northern Ireland met single market rules. Checks could also be carried out on ferries or at factories on the mainland under “trusted trader” schemes.

Mr Barnier told British MPs this month: “We are open to discussing other backstops, so we can discuss this text, we can make changes to it.”

Brussels diplomats say Mr Barnier could drop the current EU proposal for a joint EU-UK service in Northern Ireland to carry out further checks — relying instead on British officials.

At the heart of the discussions is the need to avoid any physical infrastructure to conduct customs and other checks on the Irish border after Brexit — a move seen as a backwards step in the Northern Ireland peace process.

https://www.ft.com/content/0f19f070-b829-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

FrancieBrady

Anthracite wrote: »

I presume you are referring to not crashing the talks last year? A move which, had they carried it out, would have led to a hard border?

How would that be better than where we are now?

Better or worse, the fact is they stood down their objection. The country is still unsure what is going to happen or what to prepare for.

Anthracite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Better or worse, the fact is they stood down their objection.

Yes, they stood down their objection because they are trying to avoid a hard border, and not standing down would have led to a hard border. It's not complex stuff here.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The country is still unsure what is going to happen or what to prepare for.

Indeed. It's a bit like a car that has almost crashed but is still on the road. You have to feel sorry for the poor passengers for avoiding that crash - if they had crashed, they would at least know what to prepare for, right?

Bizarre logic.

Enzokk

trellheim wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/0f19f070-b829-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

Still don't really see what the difference is here. There will be checks in the UK on goods going to NI to ensure that they comply with EU single market regulations. Whether these are EU or UK officials doing the physical checks doesn't change the fact that there will be a border in the Irish Sea. Am I missing something here?

FrancieBrady

Anthracite wrote: »

Yes, they stood down their objection because they are trying to avoid a hard border, and not standing down would have led to a hard border. It's not complex stuff here.

Indeed. It's a bit like a car that has almost crashed but is still on the road. You have to feel sorry for the poor passengers for avoiding that crash - if they had crashed, they would at least know what to prepare for, right?

Bizarre logic.

Why would it have necessarily led to a hard border? They let the UK off the hook. Who says the UK would not have caved?
I.E. they bought the line that the UK would walk away.

If you believe the UK would not have signed the backstop ever, then they might as well have vetoed any further talks and just get on with coping with a hard border.

Anthracite

Enzokk wrote: »

Still don't really see what the difference is here. There will be checks in the UK on goods going to NI to ensure that they comply with EU single market regulations. Whether these are EU or UK officials doing the physical checks doesn't change the fact that there will be a border in the Irish Sea. Am I missing something here?

Maybe the important thing is that it has the appearance of a concession?

Anthracite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would it have necessarily led to a hard border? They let the UK off the hook. Who says the UK would not have caved?
I.E. they bought the line that the UK would walk away.

It's a pity Tony Connolly didn't have your insight late last year, when he wrote:

Member states with the most to lose over a no-deal breakdown – Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands – are anxious to keep the process from coming off the rails. The Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte reportedly wants to adjust the text of the summit’s final communiqué to say that transition talks could start immediately in December the moment the divorce issues have been satisfactorily dealt with.

Dublin believes that the more preparatory work on a transition deal can be done ahead of time, the less catch-up will need to be played on 1 January next year. A transition deal will remove the immediate calamity of customs checks on the Irish border.

FrancieBrady

Anthracite wrote: »

It's a pity Tony Connolly didn't have your insight late last year, when he wrote:

Look, dress it up as whatever you want, they stood aside, for whatever reason. And there are those of us who fear that they will do it again.

judeboy101

Anthracite wrote: »

That's a lovely line, but I'm not sure how it tallies with the evidence of our own eyes. I think you would want to be coming to recent events with a pretty strong SF/IRA filter to perceive the current coalition as going easy on the UK on the border.

SF/IRA? That sounds a bit too Sammy Wilson for my liking lol. I grew up in the 80's and saw how FG tried to emulate the thatcherite gov. You don't forget that easily and scrape away the gloss from leo and you'll see he is more "blue shirt" than green, imho.

Enzokk

Anthracite wrote: »

Maybe the important thing is that it has the appearance of a concession?

Unless they are proposing that there will be no physical border in Ireland, but any checks and customs will be applied in the UK. That way there is no physical border between us and NI, but they will not be in the single market or customs union as there will be tariffs applied in UK ports on goods going to Ireland via the North. I don't see how that helps anyone, but if the UK is prepared to leave the single market and customs union this would be one of the few ways to ensure there isn't a border.

What will happen with goods that don't meet EU standards will be interesting though. We will just have to wait and see exactly what they are thinking.