Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

briany

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Unionism was relevant for a portion of the process (effectively a calendar year) where they held the threat of something - that being withdrawing support for the present government. They overplayed that leverage to the extent that May went ahead and concluded a deal that broke their red lines. They have now pressed the red button and abandoned their confidence and supply deal. Thus they are now irrelevant, because they have no further injury to cause. They've done what they can do and the process continues without them.

C&S isn't quite finished yet, according to Sammy Wilson. It's certainly been a fraught relationship but so long as the DUP have the power to throw the current government into disarray (and May needs every vote she can get), it can't be said that they, or Unionism which they claim to represent is irrelevant. Maybe if and when Labour get voted in, perhaps with the SNP propping them up, could we say that Unionism (or at least NI Unionism) is irrelevant.

Tell me how

briany wrote: »

C&S isn't quite finished yet, according to Sammy Wilson. It's certainly been a fraught relationship but so long as the DUP have the power to throw the current government into disarray (and May needs every vote she can get), it can't be said that they, or Unionism which they claim to represent is irrelevant. Maybe if and when Labour get voted in, perhaps with the SNP propping them up, could we say that Unionism (or at least NI Unionism) is irrelevant.

The government is already and officially in disarray. C&S is done for.
Sammy Wilson's words should be understood in the context that they will support May if she does exactly what the DUP want.
Literally the tick on the tail of the dog trying to do the wagging.

MrMusician18

ambro25 wrote: »

Wrong.

But that’s neither here, nor there, and a sterile path of debate (d1ck-waving about legal qualifications and experience, in the context at hand, can only end up with ‘but you’re not a CJEU judge like the AG’).

No because

(i) there is no legal mechanism to ‘eject’ a Member State from the EU (the CJEU could only ever rule that the revocation application was made in bad faith, but cannot order that the MS be outed in consequence - the 2 year period re-triggered would still run) ; and

(ii) on the basis of the AG opinion, there is a strong argument against the EU bodies and Members ever pushing for such a mechanism/outcome (‘forcing a MS out’).

It is in good part because of (ii) above, that I highly doubt that the EU would ever ‘enforce’ the good/bad faith test (refusing an Art.50 revocation on the basis of a belief -and it would have to be a belief informed by factual past behaviour- would effectively force the withdrawing MS out at the end of the running 2-year period: which EUCO participants, or EU heads, or <relevant assessors-deciders> would be ready and willing to wear that responsibility, really?)

A ruling from the CJEU in that context wouldn't be forcing a member state out. It would be CJEU not permitting an abuse of process, after it had been granted the statutory two years required. The member state in question would have been afforded everything it was entitled to under the previous art. 50 process.

I can't see how a court which is set up to defend the rules of the Union allowing the rules to be used to undermine the Union.

It wouldn't be up to the member states governments, couldn't anyone force the issue by taking it to the CJEU?

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

Anna Soubry as good as said so in her speech in the commons last night.

You'll have to take my word that I wasn't aware of that.

Sam Russell

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A ruling from the CJEU in that context wouldn't be forcing a member state out. It would be CJEU not permitting an abuse of process, after it had been granted the statutory two years required. The member state in question would have been afforded everything it was entitled to under the previous art. 50 process.

I can't see how a court which is set up to defend the rules of the Union allowing the rules to be used to undermine the Union.

It wouldn't be up to the member states governments, couldn't anyone force the issue by taking it to the CJEU?

If the UK withdraws the Art 50, and a relatively short time later makes a new notification under Art 50, any EU citizen could appeal t the ECJ that it was an abuse of process, and if the ECJ agreed, then the Art 50 notification would be declared null. The UK would be required to remain in the EU until it could make a valid notification, rather than be ejected.

However, should they make a new application that was valid, the EU would simply take down the WA and say - 'There you are, a ready made WA document we prepared earlier, sign here and here!'. There is already an agreed 2 year transition period, so the two years for Art 50 would cover the same period.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

You'll have to take my word that I wasn't aware of that.

No issue either way.

LuckyLloyd

Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago. It merely confirms the analysis and understanding of the backstop by commentators following its publication. It won't change any minds or perceptions. Quite the non issue.

And I can actually see why the government would have fought the matter as it sets quite a damaging precedent. Silly games all round.

Tell me how

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago. It merely confirms the analysis and understanding of the backstop by commentators following its publication. It won't change any minds or perceptions. Quite the non issue.

And I can actually see why the government would have fought the matter as it sets quite a damaging precedent. Silly games all round.

I'm not so sure. I think this government is solely focused on trying to get the deal through next week.

They don't have the time or the need to worry about setting precedent as they are unlikely to be around. If nothing else, they have given the opportunity to the opposition (on both sides of the house) to say "Look at what they didn't want us to see". Even if there is nothing there.

J Mysterio

briany wrote: »

There'll be a change in their status within the United Kingdom in being in a different economic bloc. That's what the DUP are objecting to. Doesn't matter even if that arrangement would end up as advantageous for NI. It's an ideological matter for the DUP.

No matter where the line would be drawn, whether on the NI border, or in the Irish sea, it's going to upset one side or the other and undermine the peace process. The PP and Brexit just aren't really compatible.

Its a stupid point though. NI is already different to the rest of the UK, with different checks already in effect, whats a few more for all the benefits? It's a ridiculous argument. They can sell to both markets and enjoy a rare situation not afforded others.

DOCARCH

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly folks, there is nothing new in the full text of the legal advice not covered in the summary provided to parliament a couple of days ago.

There isn't other than the legal advice (and legal wording) is probably a bit more frank/starker/black and white, on the reality of the backstop (i.e. may last indefinitely), than the cute/friendly/cuddly version of the backstop, that was previously being presented to parliament.

I really think that the reality of Brexit is only now sinking in for many UK politicians (....especially the English ones).

They are really starting to look like rabbits caught in the headlamps!

briany

J Mysterio wrote: »

Its a stupid point though. NI is already different to the rest of the UK, with different checks already in effect, whats a few more for all the benefits? It's a ridiculous argument. They can sell to both markets and enjoy a rare situation not afforded others.

Ideology and pragmatism don't always align. Kind of what caused this whole Brexit thing in the first place.

Folkstonian

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes bloody Scots seeking to get involved in shaping Brexit. That is for their English lords and masters only.

The Scots really need to know their place.

Scotland has historically been heavily over-represented in parliament. Scotland had the opportunity to unilaterally decide if its future was to be inside or outside the union. It will have further chances if it requires them. Your lazy slurs are factually shocking and verge on xenophobic drivel.

Econ__

I made this post (under my previous account) 9 months ago. The predictions are a little off in terms of the timing of events but I'd like to think I got the general thrust of the travel of direction correct!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106463004&postcount=6093

briany

Folkstonian wrote: »

Scotland has historically been heavily over-represented in parliament. Scotland had the opportunity to unilaterally decide if its future was to be inside or outside the union. It will have further chances if it requires them. Your lazy slurs are factually shocking and verge on xenophobic drivel.

It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway.

It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.

Tell me how

briany wrote: »

It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway.

It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.

If the Brexiteers think the EU is being unfriendly to the UK since it voted to leave, wait until we see how they suggest that Scotland be treated should it make moves towards secession.

It will be outright bile and hatred.

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

If the Brexiteers think the EU is being unfriendly to the UK since it voted to leave, wait until we see how they suggest that Scotland be treated should it make moves towards secession.

It will be outright bile and hatred.

Until whatever happens regarding brexit is actually decided the situation with Scotland is all speculation-if the UK remains then Scotland would likely be happy to remain in the UK-as they were before the brexit referendum.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

Until whatever happens regarding brexit is actually decided the situation with Scotland is all speculation-if the UK remains then Scotland would likely be happy to remain in the UK-as they were before the brexit referendum.

Perhaps, though like NI it has been a lesson, if one were needed, in how little the citizens of Scotland matter to the political process in Westminster.

RobMc59

Water John wrote: »

As a Cockney told me, there is only one crowd they hate more than the Scots and that's the Welsh.

That's probably an exaggeration-it's a rivalry -like Drogheda and Dundalk

A Dub in Glasgo

briany wrote: »

It's ironic that one of the talking points in the Scottish Independence Referendum was that they'd no longer be an EU member if they decided to leave the UK (and possibly have their membership application vetoed by the likes of Spain) and then 2 years later they were heading out of the EU anyway.

It's an absolutely massive change for Scotland, and an unwelcome one since they showed the greatest support for remaining in the EU from all four of the UK's constituent countries. Such a massive change that once again having the conversation over their constitutional status is a valid thing to do.

It is a massive change and the whole thrust of the No campaign (or Better Together) in the latter stages of the 2014 referendum was that staying in the UK was the only way to guarantee staying in the EU. Here are some examples

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584?lang=en

10000maniacs

The DUP to support May in a no confidence vote if Tuesdays vote goes against her.

tuxy

Yes they won't back her deal but will support her in a no confidence vote.
The DUP are basically anarchists.

eire4

Tell me how wrote: »

If the Brexiteers think the EU is being unfriendly to the UK since it voted to leave, wait until we see how they suggest that Scotland be treated should it make moves towards secession.

It will be outright bile and hatred.

Sadly I think your probably right. Even though the big lie told the last time was if you vote to leave your out of the EU and Spain will block you getting back in. Look how that turned out for them. Hard to see them not voting for independence given the circumstances brexit has forced on them if they chose to go down that road again.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Scottish Parliament puts the boot into the Tories (will mean nothing as the Tories just ignore the people of Scotland)


https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1070362767327182848

tuxy

The Tories just can't their head about anyone else protecting their interests.

Seth Brundle

tuxy wrote: »

The Tories just can't their head about anyone else protecting their interests.

It's not that they can't get their head aroind anyone else's interests, its that they just don't care. Look back through history; when have they ever cared about anything outside of their Oxbridge or Etonian circle?

Captain Obvious

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It's not that they can't get their head aroind anyone else's interests, its that they just don't care. Look back through history; when have they ever cared about anything outside of their Oxbridge or Etonian circle?

there was a woman on James O Brien today asking why the EU were treating the UK so badly and putting the boot in? She couldn't understand that the EU simply wanted the UK to comply with their obligations and that they wanted to preserve the union.

CPTM

It's a bit strange - not one mention of Brexit on the 9pm news tonight.? I would have thought everything happening today would make it a headline segment, but it hasn't even been mentioned.

FrancieBrady

CPTM wrote: »

It's a bit strange - not one mention of Brexit on the 9pm news tonight.? I would have thought everything happening today would make it a headline segment, but it hasn't even been mentioned.

Because we are laughing now? They will leave on our (the EU) terms or not leave at all.
Or have I missed something?

LuckyLloyd

There was no news today Brexit wise imo. What happened that changed anything? Plenty of Irish news.

sink

I've been reading up on the technical details of the backstop and it seems and absolutely crazy thing for the UK to voluntarily agree, but they did paint themselves into this corner.

Whilst NI is going to remain a full part of the EU customs union and will have the same terms as a member states. The GB part of the UK will be in a bespoke customs union with different terms.

GB will have full tariff free access to EU markets and vice-versa. However GB will have to permit goods market access to third countries on terms agreed by the EU without a say, but the aforementioned third parties won't have to open their market to GB goods. This is the same implementation as Turkey has for manufactured goods.

GB can technically negotiate it's own trade deals with third countries for services as they're not covered by the customs union. GB can also negotiate bespoke access to third countries export market for GB produced goods but without the ability to reciprocate.

I can't imagine they will ever negotiate a successful trade deal given those constraints. The only benefit to the UK seems to be an end to free movement (arguably not an actual benefit) and not having to pay fees. It's just bonkers.