Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Calina

None of this is directly relevant to the thread.

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

A couple of examples:
150,000 euro property in Republic;stamp duty:1500
£134,000 property NI;stamp duty £200
109 CO2 emission car tax in Republic;190 euros pa
same emissions car in NI;£20.pa

Well so much for using economic arguments about Brexit.

A two person average-wage household in the South has the same income as a three person one in the North.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

Theresa Villiers went on Sky News yesterday to say that:

I was going to ask who was the most clueless NI Secretary.

These people all have advisors and civil servants and reports. They'd have to go out of their way to avoid being told the basics.


https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/stephen-barclay-brexit-deal-theresa-may/

https://twitter.com/ShehabKhan/status/1069602068254597123

am i bovvered

It just gets more farcical every day.

Water John

Bercow says there's an arguable case that the Govn't are in contempt of Parlaiment. Possible vote on it tomorrow.

Enzokk

It seems that in the House of Commons right now that they are extending a debate on Scotland's Foreign Policy footprint to give the government time to get an amendment in for tomorrow on the contempt motion for tomorrow morning.

They took about 20 minutes to discuss devolution of Scotland but this debate has taken more than 2 hours now.

An Claidheamh

RobMc59 wrote: »

https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/letterstotheeditor/2017/09/20/news/ireland-should-be-reunited-by-rejoining-the-united-kingdom-1140831/
I hope the link works.(please excuse my limited internet skills!)

It doesn't say much about you that you thought that was a serious "article".

That nutter always gets his letters printed in the Sindo as well.

He's from the Cruise O'Brien school of British goosestepping trolling.


Incidentally, you obviously have a lot of evolution to do if you think Ireland should give up its sovereignty and rights to dig orangemen and British imperialists out a a hole.

United Ireland is inevitable. Britain should attempt to accept it with dignity.

Incidentally, I don't think they'll ever pay compensation or apologisefor it, nor would any Irish government expect any from them. That would be delusional on our part!

Capt'n Midnight

MPs will debate and vote on Tuesday on whether or not to refer the case to the Standards Committee.

Popcorn time.

Labour will want an election. But who else does ?

An Claidheamh

Calina wrote: »

The UK does not do joint sovereignty. No one watching the current events should be naive enough to trust them until devolution for England happens and proportional representation is implemented. Also, Ireland is a republic. I do not want a monarch as head of state.

Not a good idea.

Britain refused joint sovereignty of the North when Garret Fitzgerald proposed it to end the bloodshed, then surprise surprise, when Mrs Thatcher was losing Hong Kong to the Chinese .... she proposed joint sovereignty.

They told her they're sending in the tanks if she didn't leave. So they left.

Enzokk

Ok, here is why there was such a long debate last night on Scotland's Foreign Policy footprint, the government admits they are in contempt but are trying to kick the can down the road until after the vote.


https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1069733153407938560

RobMc59

Enzokk wrote: »

Yes the cost of living is less in NI compared to here. But in many cases the pay is less as well. Now when you could get 1.40 euro for a GBP the difference meant that the pay in NI was much better than in Ireland, but now at 1.12 euro for a GBP it means they earn less comparatively.

Take a nurse in the NHS. Pay starts at £23,000 p.a. and after 7 years your pay would be £28,500 p.a. for a band 5 nurse. In the HSE the pay starts at 29,000 euro p.a. and after 7 years you are up to 37,000 euro p.a., but the HSE scales go up to around 45,000 p.a. at the last point.

So you can easily point to a lot of costs that will be lower in NI but you need to look at the comparative pay for the same jobs in Ireland to get a clearer picture.

The pound reached 1.40 twice against the euro in the last 11 years I believe,so to use that as an example is at best questionable.Anyway,the original point was about a reunited Ireland and somehow was taken off on a tangent-not by me by the way.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

... trying to cajole, humour or placate a million disaffected unionists ...

They won't be disaffected if they've voted for reunification!

However, for RobMc59's benefit, perhaps this demonstrates that for us in the Republic, re-unification with (or "annexation of") Northern Ireland is really not that big a deal. In the GFA referendum, 94.4% of RoI voters decided that it was better to scrap the RoI's claim on the Six Counties in favour of the lasting peace promised by the GFA. Peace that was suddenly threatened by the English voting to leave the EU.

It would be very niaive to think the entire unionist community would quietly accept it.

But even without civil disobedience (or worse) the task of uniification is enormous and would take up time needed for more important (and urgent) things.
Our priority and responsibility is to overcome the problems resulting from Brexit while maximising the opportunities to win trade and investment from the UK.

That will keep us busy enough and if we do it well it will also make us a more attractive potential partner. But that is a long way down the list of objectives. Bringing UI into it now is unrealistic and unhelpful.

RobMc59

An Claidheamh wrote: »

It doesn't say much about you that you thought that was a serious "article".

That nutter always gets his letters printed in the Sindo as well.

He's from the Cruise O'Brien school of British goosestepping trolling.


Incidentally, you obviously have a lot of evolution to do if you think Ireland should give up its sovereignty and rights to dig orangemen and British imperialists out a a hole.

United Ireland is inevitable. Britain should attempt to accept it with dignity.

Incidentally, I don't think they'll ever pay compensation or apologisefor it, nor would any Irish government expect any from them. That would be delusional on our part!

Thank you for your opinion-growing up in 60s Liverpool I am familiar with sectarianism (Catholic Everton and protestant Liverpool etc..)but thankfully that has pretty much disappeared now here so isn't considered relevant in the UK with the possible exception of Scotland.

RobMc59

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Britain refused joint sovereignty of the North when Garret Fitzgerald proposed it to end the bloodshed, then surprise surprise, when Mrs Thatcher was losing Hong Kong to the Chinese .... she proposed joint sovereignty.

They told her they're sending in the tanks if she didn't leave. So they left.

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Thank you for your opinion-growing up in 60s Liverpool I am familiar with sectarianism (Catholic Everton and protestant Liverpool etc..)but thankfully that has pretty much disappeared now here so isn't considered relevant in the UK with the possible exception of Scotland.

. . . and Northern Ireland. Which is kind of relevant, in the present context.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Indeed they were 'dramatic'. The Chinese made it very clear they would broach no welching on the lease terms and the British were very fearful that if the talks broke down that China would respond militarily.

I remember in response to much British navel gazing about 'how could Hong Kong survive without British administration and fingerpointing at 'incorrigible and ineducable' Chinese leaders'(recognise that tactic?) one Chinese diplomat asked, 'If British administration is so good why have so many of her colonies fought to the death for independence?'.

DOCARCH

It's just been confirmed (by ECJ) that UK can revoke Article 50 if it chooses.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

Really?-I thought it was that the lease had expired-nothing as dramatic as your suggestion.

Bit more complex than that. China ceded Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon peninsula to the UK in perpetuity - but under presssure, not freely. Some decades later, it granted the UK a "sovereign lease" on adjacent territory, the "New Territories". It was the New Territories lease which expired. The New Territories represented the majority of the land area of Hong Kong, and accommodated the majority of the population of the colony, but did not include the port or the historic city centre.

In theory, the UK could have relinquished the New Territories, while holding on to Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, on the basis that they had been permanently ceded. But the Chinese did not accept the legitimacy of the permanent cession, and it was not realistic to for the UK to think of holding them without Chinese assent.

It was in this context that the UK proposed a form of joint sovereignty over the whole colony. Effectively, the UK would share their sovereignty over Hong Kong and Kowloon, in return for the Chinese sharing their sovereignty over the New Territories. But the Chinese weren't interested.

The UK also suggested something similar to Spain in relation to Gibraltar in round about 2000. But the idea was not popular in Gibraltar, and a referendum organised by the Gibraltarian government in 2002 put the kibosh on the idea.

Peregrinus

DOCARCH wrote: »

It's just been confirmed (by ECJ) that UK can revoke Article 50 if it chooses.

No. The Advocate-General of the Court has submitted an opinion to that effect. But the Advocate-General is not a judge and his opinion is not a ruling of the court; it's just something the court will consider when making its own ruling. More often than not, the court's ruling is in line with the Advocate General's opinion, but we cannot say whether it will be in this case until it is actually issued.

DOCARCH

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The Advocate-General of the Court has submitted an opinion to that effect.

Heard it on RTE a couple of minutes ago....subsequently they have clarified, as you say....

EdgeCase

It's unusual for the the Advocate General's opinion on something like that to be far off the mark.

It's a largely codified legal system, unlike the UK constitution which is more like interpreting the reading of tealeaves. The opinion would be based on a technical reading or the treaties and to some degree on precedent but there's much less room for interpretation.

It wasn't actually a very complicated question as there's nothing specific in the treaty that would make it irrevocable.

Peregrinus

EdgeCase wrote: »

It's unusual for the the Advocate General's opinion on something like that to be far off the mark.

It's a largely codified legal system, unlike the UK constitution which is more like interpreting the reading of tealeaves. The opinion would be based on a technical reading or the treaties and to some degree on precedent but there's much less room for interpretation.

It wasn't actually a very complicated question as there's nothing specific in the treaty that would make it irrevocable.

It's quite a complex question, as there's also nothing specific in the Treaty which would make it revocable. And some have pointed out that, as the Treaty explicitly makes simple deferral of an Art 50 notice dependent on the unanimous consent of member states, it would be inconsistent to allow the much more radical step of revocation of an Art 50 notice to be effected unilaterally.

As to how often the AG is "off the mark", practitioners used to say that, as a rule of thumb, the court would agree with the AG in about 80% of cases. But that was then; some years ago the court processes changed so that, instead of offering an opinion in all cases, the AG now only offers opinions in cases that raise new issues of law and, since then, the 80% estimate no longer holds good. But nobody has done a calculation to identify a new "agreement rate".

Academic opinion on whether A50 notice can be revoked is divided, some arguing that on a coherenent reading of the Treaty as a whole it makes sense to see the notice as revocable unilaterally, some that (on the same reading) it should be revocable only with either unanimous or qualified majority consent, and some that it is not revocable at all.

Peregrinus

According to the RTE report:

In answer to the question from the Scottish court, the Advocate General proposes that the Court of Justice should in its future judgment, declare that Article 50 TEU allows the unilateral revocation of the notification of the intention to withdraw from the EU, until such time as the Withdrawal Agreement is formally concluded, provided that the revocation has been decided upon in accordance with the member state's constitutional requirements, is formally notified to the European Council and does not involve an abusive practice."

The last bit, which I have highlighted, is key. I think it probably signals that a state can't withdraw their A50 notice as a way of buying more time, without the need to obtain the consent of other states as envisaged by the Treaty. So, if you withdraw A50 notice, it has to be because you want to remain a member of the EU; it can't be with a view to having a second, and better-prepared or better-thought-through, crack at leaving.

Leroy42

Isn't it largely academic though, the EU would fully accept if the UK withdrew A50 would they not?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Isn't it largely academic though, the EU would fully accept if the UK withdrew A50 would they not?

If they were satisfied that there was a political consensus in the the UK to remain in membership, probably, yes.

But if they thought it was a tactic to have a second crack, or if they thought the UK remained politically divided and the UK government would continue to be sem-paralysed in relation to EU issues, they'd not be so keen. Brexit aside, the EU has other problems which need addressing, and there are various ways in which the EU needs reform. There must be a risk, to put it no higher, that a UK government would block any new treaty effecting reforms because of concerns about domestic opposition from bitter Brexiters with a strong sense of betrayal, and determined to see every development of any kind in the EU as a sinister plot to advance a program of federalism and deprive the UK of its sovereignty.

Basically, the UK changing its mind at this point and deciding to remain would quite likely be seen as something of a mixed blessing by at least some member states.

EdgeCase

The likelihood of the Tories ever allowing a second referendum is very, very low. The Brexiteers have managed to get the public to vote for it and, much like most dodgy sales tactics that sign you up to 3 year mobile phone contracts that sound too good to be true, they're now pointing to the details that nobody read or paid attention to and sticking to the notion that it's been signed up to and you're locked in forever.

I still think we are looking at them running down the clock until there's a crash out and then it really is irrevocable.

I also think the DUP just want to cause a hard border (despite what they're saying). Their flawed logic is that a lot of them think they this would end "Dublin" involvement in NI and permanently lock them into the UK. That's what's driving their harder Brexiteers, at least from what I've heard anecdotally. It's basically an attempt to burn the bridges.

The friendly and reasonable sounding talk from Arleen, who is probably a very sensible and pragmatic politician, does not seem to reflect the attitudes in the larger element of the party. I suspect she's just doing her best to keep the show on the road. Often in NI politics the leadership of parties is far more reasonable and open-minded than the grassroots.

All of these hardline people in the Tories, UKIP, DUP and even Labour's Brexiteers will simply aim to stall until after March 29th so that the position becomes genuinely irrevocable.

They don't have to do anything other than filibuster and drag their feet.

Leroy42

Its strange, because the Express article about the opinion of the AG reads like a victory for the UK.

But in reality, this was always an option. TM has not only ruled it out as an option she is willing to go with, but even the thought of asking the people their opinion has been deemed undemocratic. So whilst the option may be there I cannot see it being used for a number of reasons.

As Peregrinus points out, the EU would want pretty big assurances (which I am not sure TM can give or even be believed) that any stop to A50 is 'permanent' rather than simply a delaying tactic. But even if they accept the UK's word, and the UK then opt for Brexit again in the short term, if they felt these negotiations were tough imagine what they face with a fed up EU!
Second, the media and the public will simply not accept it. The line, that TM has embraced, that Brexit is the will of the people and must be carried through, is very strong and there seems no way back

EdgeCase

I wouldn't mind the Express. They have had headlines about Sterling surging and the Euro collapsing which have been entirely wrong 20 mins after publication.

You might as well be reading a pro-Brexit satirical comic. I don't know how anyone takes them seriously other than as a barometer of UKIP voters.

Leroy42

EdgeCase wrote: »

I wouldn't mind the Express. They have had headlines about Sterling surging and the Euro collapsing which have been entirely wrong 20 mins after publication.

You might as well be reading a pro-Brexit satirical comic. I don't know how anyone takes them seriously other than as a barometer of UKIP voters.

Of course, fully agree. I was merely using it to highlight how they are reporting on it. It shows that anything that sees the UK get 'one over' the EU is seen as a good thing, regardless of whether they actually want it or not.

RobMc59

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its strange, because the Express article about the opinion of the AG reads like a victory for the UK.

But in reality, this was always an option. TM has not only ruled it out as an option she is willing to go with, but even the thought of asking the people their opinion has been deemed undemocratic. So whilst the option may be there I cannot see it being used for a number of reasons.

As Peregrinus points out, the EU would want pretty big assurances (which I am not sure TM can give or even be believed) that any stop to A50 is 'permanent' rather than simply a delaying tactic. But even if they accept the UK's word, and the UK then opt for Brexit again in the short term, if they felt these negotiations were tough imagine what they face with a fed up EU!
Second, the media and the public will simply not accept it. The line, that TM has embraced, that Brexit is the will of the people and must be carried through, is very strong and there seems no way back

This is great news for those who voted remain and as you rightly point out should only be used in a genuine desire to reverse the decision to leave and not used as a cynical attempt to buy time. Also,the telegraphs reporting of this important news is almost comical in its ridiculous biased tone!