Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

robinph wrote: »

There is only so many ways that you can say you've got your final deal and there must never be a hard border in Ireland.

Bambi wrote: »

i
I think it's Junkers way of saying they're not going to keep rewording the same statement over and over just because Theresa thinks it will change the meaning somehow so stop playing silly buggers

It was only the Connolly tweet up when I responded. I think the letter is more than clear.

seamus

Harry Palmr wrote: »

"Not as bad as Dunkirk" is not much of an endorsement for a no deal exit.

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1084722700097122304

"Now, I know it's not ideal, but this car is only doing about 20mph. So we're going to jump from it, but it's OK. This is survivable."

"This seems fairly stupid. Can't we just stop the car first?"

"....

Don't bottle this on me, we both agreed to this"

Hurrache

And May's letter to the EU
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf

seamus

Well, a quick skim of that letter, to me definitely explains Juncker's response.

"Dear Mr. Juncker, we agreed a lot of things in the WA, but some people in my government are concerned that you won't stick to it. Can you please reaffirm for their sake all of the things which have already been agreed to in writing?"

Bizarre letter from May.

Donald Trump

Hurrache wrote: »

And May's letter to the EU
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf

Someone should ask her, given that they are so committed to having no hard border based on principles and the GFA, how are they going to work it if there is a no-deal......

Leroy42

It is an odd letter from TM.

She spends almost the entire letter pointing out that the current agreement is great, meets the concerns and obligations of both parties and was achieved by substantial movement on both sides (she pointedly states that the EU made a significant concession).

But then she goes to say, that despite all of that, she has failed to adequately explain all of this to the HoC and so needs even more from the EU in order to help her sell the deal.

So, I totally agree with the deal, I would love to sign it and think its good for both sides, but I can't sign it as my HoC wants more stuff from you.

She can't possibly claim that No Deal is something worth pursuing after that letter.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

If the country voted for no taxes, you should do that as well. The key is to not ask them such stupid questions.

We literally were asked if we wanted 'no rates' (the core tax at the time) and answered yes. So a little less self congratulation is probably in order.

jmayo

prawnsambo wrote: »

There was also the constant of the IDA trying to attract foreign direct investment and jobs over many, many decades which would have been high in our consciousness.

We knew a fair bit about the outside world before IDA started pimping us.
And a fair bit of that foreign direct investment was due to links to Ireland from Irish descendants.

prawnsambo wrote: »

To be fair, many of our infrastructure projects have completed inside the time and under budget. Some of the motorway projects like parts of the M11/N11 would have been completed under budget and early.

Funny you mention the N11/M11, it may have come in early because it was given years to complete.
How long did it take to link Wicklow and Arklow bypasses again ?
They are still working on it as the Enniscorthy bypass is now just happening.

And as for future proofing, they are about to tear up Kilmacanogue again because they made a mare of it first time round.
That will add nicely to the morning Northbound and afternoon/evening Southbound.

Donald Trump wrote: »

To be fair, if Ireland invested massively in such projects say a year ago, and the cliff edge hadn't come, we might have been a long time getting that investment back.

Leaving yourself a few months is lunacy and with a hard Brexit there will be total chaos.
Watch the Port Tunnel turn into a truck park.

I don't think investment in ports is wasted.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If you look back, when foot and mouth decided to rear its ugly head, the Dept of Agriculture did a very good job from a standing start.

When needs must, the Gov do act quickly and decisively.

Did foot and mouth need any infrastructure build, bar a funeral pyre?
Our ports simply will not be able to cope with traffic build ups.
And even if we get the customs personnel in place where will they operate from, the side of the road?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also, I would not be surprised to learn (after the fact) that there are secret deals with the UK if there is a No Deal Brexit. Those secret deals may be EU/UK or Ire/UK.

What ???

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well, I don't know how much you have been following the background to the current vote, but very basically back in late 2016 Gina Miller obtained a ruling that the UK Government did not have the right to issue Article 50 notification without approval of the UK Parliament.

The result of this was the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act of 2017 which also required that the UK Parliament would have a final vote on the deal. This is the vote which is happening next week.

The problem for Ireland is that although the deal is better than anything we could have expected, it looks like it may now not pass UK parliamentary scrutiny.

Even if Gina Miller had never fought her case and the government didn't need parliamentary approval to serve A50 notice, the Withdrawal Agreement would still need parliamentary approval, because implementing it will require various Acts of Parliament to be amended, and only Parliament can do, or authorise, that. So May was never able to deliver a Withdrawal Agreement to which parliament objected. But for Gina Miller, she could have started the process without parliamentary consent, and she could have delivered a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary consent. But not a Brexit deal.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there is the CTA for a start as the kind of deal we have - could that be tweaked to make the NI border easier?

No. The CTA relates to movement of persons. Even in the worst crash-out Brexit there will be no restriction there. The restrictions will be on trade, the movement of goods.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the current checks on the Irish Sea be tweaked to make the NI border easier? Currently set at 10% checks but go to 100% checks.

If the British set fire to themselves rather than accept the backstop, it will be because the backstop requires increased controls on trade between NI and GB. If they were willing to accept increased controls, they wouldn't reject the backstop.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Could the EU make some of their micro-deals depend on flexibility on the NI border?

The EU will not be making any micro-deals in the event of no deal. They will be taking certain measures (and they have announced some of them already) but they are not deals; they are unilateral acts which have not been negotiated with the UK.

trellheim

Reading May's letter it seems to include extra veto "I reconfirm that"... "the UK government will not let regulatory divergence develop.. between GB and NI" without agreement of the political institutions of NI

Leroy42

So what is the impression of the actual contents and meaning of the EU letter? It there anything in it that moves the EU at all towards the UK position, or is it, as I am taking from it, merely a restatement of the previous position in nice friendly language?

trellheim

DUP’s Dodds: “Despite a letter of supposed reassurance from EU, there are no “legally binding assurances” as the Prime Minister talked about in December. In fact, there is nothing new. Nothing has changed. Rather than reassure us, the Tusk & Juncker letter bolsters our concerns

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1084798057005436928

rusty the athlete

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. The CTA relates to movement of persons. .

I'm confused. Brexit explicitly ends of freedom of movement, that's what they voted for. How does the CTA survive beyond brexit in this case? And what about the 65 quid so called immigration status fees for European Union citizens resident in the UK? That must surely apply to Irish citizens regardless of CTA.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

Essentially because it is so close to the vote in the UK Parliament which we want to pass.

Willingness to extend A50 if the vote fails is a good thing from Ireland's point of view, but the timing of the announcement is unfortunate.

Your point escapes me. If (in the highly unlikely event) the UK parliament votes for May's deal, an extension to A50 is not needed.

If it doesn't, then it is sensible to prepare properly. The timing of any announcement is irrelevant.

Peregrinus

rusty the athlete wrote: »

I'm confused. Brexit explicitly ends of freedom of movement, that's what they voted for. How does the CTA survive beyond brexit in this case? And what about the 65 quid so called immigration status fees for European Union citizens resident in the UK? That must surely apply to Irish citizens regardless of CTA.

The CTA predates EU membership of both Ireland and the UK, and will survive Brexit. Irish citizens' rights in the UK depend on UK law, not EU law, and they are not to be changed as a result of Brexit. Irish citizens do not have to apply for perm. residence in the UK, and won't have to pay the fees that other EU citizens have to pay.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if Gina Miller had never fought her case and the government didn't need parliamentary approval to serve A50 notice, the Withdrawal Agreement would still need parliamentary approval, because implementing it will require various Acts of Parliament to be amended, and only Parliament can do, or authorise, that. So May was never able to deliver a Withdrawal Agreement to which parliament objected. But for Gina Miller, she could have started the process without parliamentary consent, and she could have delivered a no-deal Brexit without parliamentary consent. But not a Brexit deal.

Well it is true that Miller's case was that the government required parliamentary approval to invoke A50. However, as I remember it, the case hinged around whether the "royal prerogative" applied to Brexit. The "royal prerogative" is a power UK governments have to make or break treaties. In the case of Brexit it is to break a treaty but had the court found in favour of the UK government, then "royal prerogative" would have meant that it had the power to also "make" the treaty concerning withdrawal. Even without the ruling, it may still be the case that the UK government has the right to make the withdrawal treaty, however in the subsequent Notification of Withdrawal Act, an amendment was brought in that required the upcoming parliamentary vote. So, either way, Gina Miller was instrumental, imo.

You are correct, if I understand you correctly, that implementation of the agreement would require legislation but the agreement itself between the UK and the EU on withdrawal would already be in place and the UK could be held to account if it failed to enact the agreed legislation. At the moment it is not in place. There is no agreement between the UK and the EU; nothing to hold them to.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

We literally were asked if we wanted 'no rates' (the core tax at the time) and answered yes. So a little less self congratulation is probably in order.

I was entirely unaware of something like that happening, but it doesn't take away from my point.

Anyways..

DOCARCH

rusty the athlete wrote: »

I'm confused. Brexit explicitly ends of freedom of movement, that's what they voted for. How does the CTA survive beyond brexit in this case? And what about the 65 quid so called immigration status fees for European Union citizens resident in the UK? That must surely apply to Irish citizens regardless of CTA.

Possible get around, for Irish citizens, under the Ireland Act 1949?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland_Act_1949

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

Your point escapes me. If (in the highly unlikely event) the UK parliament votes for May's deal, an extension to A50 is not needed.

If it doesn't, then it is sensible to prepare properly. The timing of any announcement is irrelevant.

It is relevant, imo. It makes it easier for Labour MPs to vote against the deal if they think they can extend article 50 (perhaps after a GE).

If the goal is making voting against the deal a scary prospect, then the EU offer of an extension makes it less scary. Our taoiseach said that its this deal or a no deal brexit. The EU are undermining this message by issuing this offer now.

Of course, it is unlikely that the deal will be accepted anyway regardless of what the EU says or does but the point remains.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what is the impression of the actual contents and meaning of the EU letter? It there anything in it that moves the EU at all towards the UK position, or is it, as I am taking from it, merely a restatement of the previous position in nice friendly language?

Couple of minor changes of emphasis, or statements of things that are not surprising, but have not so far been formally stated.

- If at the point where the backstop is due to kick in an FTA (on terms that will avoid a hard border) has been negotiated but not fully ratified (by the EU-27), the Commission will propose provisional application of the relevant parts of the unratified FTA, as an alternative to having the backstop kick in.

- Up to now, "super-duper FTA" and "magic technology" have been seen as alternative ways of avoiding the backstop, and the EU has been pretty sarky about the practical likelihood of magic technology being able to do it. But the letter suggests that the two approaches could be combined, and technology might have a positive role to play as part of the FTA arrangements.

- The PD talks about the FTA "building on" the backstop arrangements, suggesting that the backstop may be a kind of pointer to what an FTA might say. But the letter says no, new arrnagements for avoiding a hard border in the FTA "are not required to replicate" the provisions of the protocal "provided the underlying objectives" (of avoiding a hard border) are met. This also could signal a more open approach to, um, creative suggestions for keeping the border open.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

You are correct, if I understand you correctly, that implementation of the agreement would require legislation but the agreement itself between the UK and the EU on withdrawal would already be in place and the UK could be held to account if it failed to enact the agreed legislation. At the moment it is not in place. There is no agreement between the UK and the EU; nothing to hold them to.

Well, it's not quite that simple. Treaty-making is a two-stage process - signature and ratification. First the parties negotiate and sign a treaty. At that state the treating is in final form and both parties are obliged to try and make it work. But it is not yet in force. Both parties then have to go home and do whatever needs to be done so they can actually comply with the treaty. So, if the parties will need to change their domestic law, for example, they need to go back to their respective legislatures and get them either to change the law, or to commit to doing so. Only when this has been done on both sides to the parties ratify the treaty, and then it enters into force.

And the UK was never going to be able to ratify any Withdrawal Agreement without getting buy-in from Parliament, since any kind of Withdrawal Agreement that you could plausibly imagine was going to require some change to UK legislation.

LuckyLloyd

trellheim wrote: »

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1084798057005436928

There was nothing the EU could actually deliver that they would have been happy with. They are fully irrelevant at this stage. They'll vote on whatever moves the needle to No Deal and reject anything else. Grand.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

The CTA predates EU membership of both Ireland and the UK, and will survive Brexit. Irish citizens' rights in the UK depend on UK law, not EU law, and they are not to be changed as a result of Brexit. Irish citizens do not have to apply for perm. residence in the UK, and won't have to pay the fees that other EU citizens have to pay.

The CTA seems dangerous to me in a No Deal scenario. We would surely have huge immigration here from the UK. Some of that could benefit the economy but much might also be a drain and there would surely be some not insignificant societal impact. I realise this sounds a little un-generous.

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

It is relevant, imo. It makes it easier for Labour MPs to vote against the deal if they think they can extend article 50 (perhaps after a GE).

The only reason an extension would be agreed by the 27 EU members would be to give more time to put the necessary infrastructure and processes in place. It is not an accomodation for the UK's political contortions.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

The only reason an extension would be agreed by the 27 EU members would be to give more time to put the necessary infrastructure and processes in place. It is not an accomodation for the UK's political contortions.

Maybe that is the intention, but from Ireland's point of view, imo, it would have been better to have waited until after the vote.

Berserker

J Mysterio wrote: »

We would surely have huge immigration here from the UK. Some of that could benefit the economy but much might also be a drain and there would surely be some not insignificant societal impact. I realise this sounds a little un-generous.

Why would there be huge immigration to Ireland in that event? If there is, Ireland is just going to have to accept those people and the consequences, financial and social, as a member of the EU. What support would these people be entitled to, as a matter of interest?

First Up

Bit cynical wrote:

Maybe that is the intention, but from Ireland's point of view, imo, it would have been better to have waited until after the vote.

It doesn't make a whit of difference to the vote.

Bit cynical

First Up wrote: »

It doesn't make a whit of difference to the vote.

As it turns out it won't make much of a difference given that Labour and a significant number of Tory MPs oppose the deal. However if the vote were closer, then announcements like this would tend to have the effect of bouncing the UK into a no deal scenario. It makes it easier for Labour to sell a no vote among its MPs since the spectre of a disorderly Brexit is postponed with an extension to A50.

I'm not saying that it is deliberate as such but rather that such offers could have been held off till after the vote.

J Mysterio

Berserker wrote: »

Why would there be huge immigration to Ireland in that event? If there is, Ireland is just going to have to accept those people and the consequences, financial and social, as a member of the EU. What support would these people be entitled to, as a matter of interest?

My thinking is that Britain in a post No Deal Brexit will be in a world of hurt, and so people may well look to pop over here. My understanding is that British citizens are entitled to come here and also claim benefits under the CTA.

It's just a thought as to one of the possible outcomes of No Deal and how it might affect us.