Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Capt'n Midnight

Bit cynical wrote: »

While Norway is in the single market it is not correct to say that Switzerland is in the single market, and neither Norway nor Switzerland is in a customs union with the EU.

They are both in Schengen. Red lines.


Norway mean the four freedoms. Red lines.

Switzerland is not on offer.
And the EU deals the Swiss are trying to renegotiate are being put on hold by Brexit so don't expect

What the UK wants is not Norway or Switzerland, but something that starts off as one of those and piles on concession after concession.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I have not asked it. And yes it is very clear many don’t want it.
I was curious if many thought we were moving to it being softened or time limited? It’s the sense I get.

If you time limit it you might as well bin it.

Where are you getting 'the sense' from?

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

This gfa stuff is very one sided. My community swallowed some very unsavoury pills to support it but were promised it “copper-fastened” the union until such times as a majority in north wanted to change that. There would be no change to the sovereignty without the consent of the NI people.
The backstop is clearly a change to the sovereignty of NI. So in breach of gfa. Does that matter to you guys. Or does the integrity of the gfa only matter when it supports your position?

This is the James O'Brien test to Brexiters when there is talk about sovereignty. What laws from the EU would you change that has been "forced" onto the UK? The context is, what horrible laws the EU forces on nations that means they are restricted and worse off in some way. Basically can you show any laws or regulations that will somehow hurt NI when you are in the backstop?

Remember the backstop is to ensure the continued support for the all island economy. So what is good for Ireland will be good for Northern Ireland.

downcow wrote: »

Do you think there is a real chance of the Eu timelimiting the backstop? This could be transformative
....and I know many on here think they shouldn’t and the reasons. But do you think they will?

No, because then it is not a backstop. The backstop is only applicable unless and until a solution is found that negates the need for the backstop. In fact the UK could negate the backstop tomorrow if Theresa May says that they will be members of the customs union and single market to ensure an open border.

Strazdas

downcow wrote: »

Do you think there is a real chance of the Eu timelimiting the backstop? This could be transformative
....and I know many on here think they shouldn’t and the reasons. But do you think they will?

It sounds a contradiction. The idea of the backstop is that it is a "guarantee" from the British side of no hard border. If the guarantee simply runs out and the UK is free to do whatever it likes as of midnight that night (including doing something that causes a hard border), how can that be a guarantee?

The hard Brexiteers are already strongly implying they wouldn't averse to breaching the GFA if it suited them.

Irishmale0399

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What the UK wants is not Norway or Switzerland, but something that starts off as one of those and piles on concession after concession.

Maybe the EU should be asking themselves what the UK has to offer the EU before they are sitting down to move the goal posts or to change the deal on offer.



As I see it, the UK has nothing that the EU needs. So we dont need to start talking again...either they accept the deal on the table or they leave without.

Zubeneschamali

downcow wrote: »

This gfa stuff is very one sided. My community swallowed some very unsavoury pills to support it

Your people, the DUP, never supported the GFA. Never signed up.

Bit cynical

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They are both in Schengen. Red lines.


Norway mean the four freedoms. Red lines.

Switzerland is not on offer.
And the EU deals the Swiss are trying to renegotiate are being put on hold by Brexit so don't expect

What the UK wants is not Norway or Switzerland, but something that starts off as one of those and piles on concession after concession.

But even if the UK adopted exactly the same model as Norway they would fall foul of EU negotiators since Norway is not in the customs union despite being a very soft form of Brexit.

Itssoeasy

downcow wrote: »

Do you think there is a real chance of the Eu timelimiting the backstop? This could be transformative
....and I know many on here think they shouldn’t and the reasons. But do you think they will?

No.

Why do people keep using the backstop as a reason to go for no deal ? The backstop will hopefully never be used(and has been stated as much by Theresa May, our government and the EU) but the DUP and others are trying to make it seem like it would come into effect the day after the UK leaves ? And if Arlene foster spent as much energy on getting stormont back up and running as she does meeting with Theresa May then the people of Northern Ireland might have a government working for them. The people of NI voted as to stay in the EU and that position isn't being expressed properly because of the bloody DUP.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

But even if the UK adopted exactly the same model as Norway they would fall foul of EU negotiators since Norway is not in the customs union despite being a very soft form of Brexit.

I think you mean they would fall foul of the GFA and the need to keep the border open. For that to happen you need both access to the single market and membership of the customs union. This should have been obvious before and nothing so far has changed this reality.

Capt'n Midnight

EdgeCase wrote: »

The driving force for Brexit has come from the English rustbelt - old industrial towns, former coal mining areas and places that have been left behind largely. It's a part of England that not all that many people from Ireland would be extremely familiar with as I was never a particularly attractive place to move to or interact with in modern times.

That's only half the story. There's also the safe middle class or triple lock pensioner, people who are comfortable and can easily afford principles like "taking back control".

The rustbelt on it's own could be ignored as it usually is.
But this time it's got the support of the older Conservatives.

But neither group could win the vote.
And they are only united on what they don't want , not what they do.


It's a gross oversimplification. But how can anyone unite the wishes of both groups ? Nevermind all the smaller groups that believe in their own cherry picked version of Brexit.

Seth Brundle

EdgeCase wrote: »

The driving force for Brexit has come from the English rustbelt - old industrial towns, former coal mining areas and places that have been left behind largely. It's a part of England that not all that many people from Ireland would be extremely familiar with as I was never a particularly attractive place to move to or interact with in modern times.

I thinking has its roots in a former imperial system that is in denial about where its place in the world is today. It also stems from a dysfunctional press, much of which is anti-EU and has never had a problem in creating it's own propaganda to support its xenophobic views

downcow

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No.

Why do people keep using the backstop as a reason to go for no deal ? The backstop will hopefully never be used(and has been stated as much by Theresa May, our government and the EU) but the DUP and others are trying to make it seem like it would come into effect the day after the UK leaves ? And if Arlene foster spent as much energy on getting stormont back up and running as she does meeting with Theresa May then the people of Northern Ireland might have a government working for them. The people of NI voted as to stay in the EU and that position isn't being expressed properly because of the bloody DUP.

Not that i want to defend the dupers. I think you’ll find that it’s because of Sinn Fein and their abstentionist policy

Strazdas

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I thinking has its roots in a former imperial system that is in denial about where its place in the world is today. It also stems from a dysfunctional press, much of which is anti-EU and has never had a problem in creating it's own propaganda to support its xenophobic views

It's a bit of a perfect storm : a badly failing political system coupled with a lying press which has been churning out lies and propaganda for decades.

The former could be counteracted by an honest press, but not a dishonest one which is working in cahoots with the worst elements in British politics.

Bit cynical

Enzokk wrote: »

I think you mean they would fall foul of the GFA and the need to keep the border open. For that to happen you need both access to the single market and membership of the customs union. This should have been obvious before and nothing so far has changed this reality.

Could you quote the bit of the GFA text the UK would be in breach of if they adopted the Norway model? I don't think it is in Ireland's interest to hold them in breach in any case.

gooch2k9

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I thinking has its roots in a former imperial system that is in denial about where its place in the world is today. It also stems from a dysfunctional press, much of which is anti-EU and has never had a problem in creating it's own propaganda to support its xenophobic views

Entirely agree with this. Point backed up in this article from today: link. How anyone could deny this is, never mind get upset over it is beyond belief? At least that councillor has a sense of reality.

ThePanjandrum

Enzokk wrote: »

I think you mean they would fall foul of the GFA and the need to keep the border open. For that to happen you need both access to the single market and membership of the customs union. This should have been obvious before and nothing so far has changed this reality.

I find it difficult to understand why, when Britain says it is leaving the EU but will not impose a hard border, it is breaching the GFA and endangering peace.

When Leo says that if Britain leaves he will enforce the border (or not, depending on which day it is) this is a principled move and nothing is said about the GFA and endangering peace.

Junkyard Tom

downcow wrote: »

Not that i want to defend the dupers. I think you’ll find that it’s because of Sinn Fein and their abstentionist policy

Reproductive Rights
Scotland ✓
Wales ✓
England ✓
Norn Iron ✗ -- Blocked by Unionists.

Minority Language Legislation
Scotland ✓
Wales ✓
Norn Iron ✗ -- Blocked by Unionists.

Marriage Equality Legislation
Scotland ✓
Wales ✓
England ✓
Norn Iron ✗ -- Blocked by Unionists.

Unionists: 'It's SF's fault'.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand why, when Britain says it is leaving the EU but will not impose a hard border, it is breaching the GFA and endangering peace.

When Leo says that if Britain leaves he will enforce the border (or not, depending on which day it is) this is a principled move and nothing is said about the GFA and endangering peace.

The UK cannot leave the EU with No Deal and not cause a hard border to happen, this is the problem : it cannot have a hard border at Dover and Felixstowe but not one on its western flank in Ireland, WTO and Single Market rules won't allow it.

Bit cynical

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Why do people keep using the backstop as a reason to go for no deal?

Well, while we will never know exactly why MPs voted against the deal, the backstop was widely cited as one of the reasons they could not support it.

The backstop will hopefully never be used(and has been stated as much by Theresa May, our government and the EU) but the DUP and others are trying to make it seem like it would come into effect the day after the UK leaves?

However it remains something that can be invoked if negotiations on a trade deal don't go the way the EU want. For example, the EU could insist that the only way they would be able to not use the backstop would be a full and comprehensive free trade deal but they would only agree to this if free movement of people were included. If the UK did not like that, fine: backstop it is.

This is just an example. Potentially any condition could be thrown in to suit the EU and the UK would have no choice but to accept it or the backstop.

UK MPs can see this and, whilst they may not be in favour of a hard border, don't want to tie the country into an open-ended agreement such as this.

ThePanjandrum

joe40 wrote: »

It is abundantly clear that the DUP and the brexiteers share your disregard for the gfa. Unfortunately the international treaty agreed in 1998 exists. It can't be wished away

You know that bit of the GFA

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.

is that still valid then? Obviously, it can't be wished away or altered.

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

The UK cannot leave the EU with No Deal and not cause a hard border to happen, this is the problem : it cannot have a hard border at Dover and Felixstowe but not one on its western flank in Ireland, WTO and Single Market rules won't allow it.

The WTO won't object so you're saying that the GFA is endangered by the EU which isn't even a party to it.

Christy42

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

I think you mean they would fall foul of the GFA and the need to keep the border open. For that to happen you need both access to the single market and membership of the customs union. This should have been obvious before and nothing so far has changed this reality.

I find it difficult to understand why, when Britain says it is leaving the EU but will not impose a hard border, it is breaching the GFA and endangering peace.

When Leo says that if Britain leaves he will enforce the border (or not, depending on which day it is) this is a principled move and nothing is said about the GFA and endangering peace.

On a hard Brexit will the UK follow WTO rules?

If yes and it does not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland it will in effect be giving the EU 0% tariffs on all goods. Thus by WTO rules it must give everyone 0% tariffs on everything.

If not then no one will bother reciprocating WTO rules and will charge whatever tariffs they like.

I really, really don't give a **** about the UK talking about not putting up a hard border when they refuse to put forward what they are doing in that case. Like the nonsense about the backstop while refusing to ever put forward another option that doesn't result in a hard border.

The UK is lying when it says it won't impose a hard border (as is Leo by the way). It has to put one up. There seems to be a weird game of not admitting it going on. The UK is making decisions that will make both sides put up a hard border.

(And yes the WTO will object because every country will want 0% tariffs into the UK without needing a trade deal).

Capt'n Midnight

downcow wrote: »

Cambridge dictionary
sovereignty definition: 1. the power of a country to control its own government: 2 . the power or authority to rule.

Does that help? Under the backstop we would have zero contro over those setting our rules.

Sovereignty means Parliament could vote to kill the monarch tomorrow and it'd all be legal.

And Parliament has previous on this.


Sovereignty doesn't mean you can get out of a promise by claiming you had your fingers crossed. Sovereignty means Parliament doesn't need to ask anyone before it passes a law. Not even the public , even if there was a non-binding advisory referendum. In Ireland the people must be consulted if the written constitution that overrides everything, blocks a new law.


Parliament doesn't have to sign up to the Backstop because, you know Sovereignty.
But that just means no deal.
It's not a difficult concept.

EdgeCase

You have absolute sovereignty and ability to make your own democratic decisions. The problem is that that's doesn't magically mean if you make a hugely problematic decision that it can be implemented without real world consequences.

If the UK does go down the route of a hard Brexit there are serious practical, economic and in NI political implications that no amount of ranting about sovereignty is going to make go away.

Nobody's going to attempt to stop the UK jumping off a cliff but you are being warned that there are sharp and pointy rocks and shark infested waters below. If those warnings aren't listened to, that's pretty much all any of us can do.

downcow

Bit cynical wrote: »

Could you quote the bit of the GFA text the UK would be in breach of if they adopted the Norway model? I don't think it is in Ireland's interest to hold them in breach in any case.

No probs

“(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;“

And hence if you want to put a referendum to the people of NI as to whether we accept an agreement that contains the backstop then I’m ok with that. But I think I know the answer.

MPFGLB

EdgeCase wrote: »

That's something that will also bite rather hard as they've an assumption that they've some kind of political influence in the US due to a special relationship that most Americans are entirely unaware of.

However, I wouldn't say there's a deliberate ignorance, but there is a rather surprising lack of any knowledge of what is *their* history. Irish history until 1921 was fully part of British history and the Northern Ireland troubles occurred almost exclusively in the UK - Northern Ireland being part of the UK and the majority of major attacks occurring in Northern Ireland or in Britain itself.

I just find it somewhat odd that they can just sort of package it up as "over there" and nothing to do with them.

Also to be honest, on an interpersonal level there isn't huge antipathy towards the English in Ireland. I have English relatives and lots of connections to England and Scotland at various levels of my family.

Any antipathy tends to be because of what happened during the war of independence era, particularly the use of the Black and Tans and so on. That was in widespread living memory until relatively recently and those kinds of memories tend to become cultural.

Also I would say that most Irish people tend to get on very well with most English people. It's just that there is a rather obnoxious layer in an aspect of the Tory party and English nationalism that genuinely tends to rub pretty much everyone up the wrong way. They're somewhat hard to like.

But, whatever about all of the above, it's mind-boggling that a high-level current affairs presenter would be so poorly briefed.

I don't expect your average person in a pub to know much about Irish politics, anymore than your average Irish person's going to know the ins and outs of how the House of Lords works, but I would expect a leading current affairs presenter on RTE or BBC to and I would hold them to a totally different standard.

My expectation of BBC current affairs is that it should be up here at the level of a political science department in a university.
It's supposed to be a world-leading, public broadcaster at the top of its game. They've VAST resources and expertise to pull from and they're increasingly behaving like they're some cheapo tabloid.

I think it's utterly reasonable to hold the BBC to a far higher standard.

John Humpreys is beyond editorial control at the BBC ..bit like Andrew Neil and Nick Robinson .these guys are very long standing and take no direction from anyone... Humpreys and Neil are Brexiters ...Humpreys has been on holiday with David Davies...so impartiality from some of their main political journalists is not there at the BBC

In reply to the point o the EU losing several million each year on moving from one city to the next ...The UK (and Irish Gov.) have lost so much more on useless projects and tribunals down the years...not to mention poor decisions on tax and spending ..The Eu is not perfect but is looksalot healthier than Westminster at times

I am fascinated at the level of interest and insight from the Irish on Brexit..(I'm Irish living in London) .most people I know here in Britain have switched off ...Its seems a conundrum that cannot be solved given the constraints and the main players...Most sensible people have adopted the ostrich approach now.No amount of logic or debate can find reason where reason does not exist..The reply from every Brexiter is about belief and emotion ...facts are not even considered

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

No probs

“(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;“

And hence if you want to put a referendum to the people of NI as to whether we accept an agreement that contains the backstop then I’m ok with that. But I think I know the answer.

Your attorney general (emphasis: YOURS) has said that the backstop threatens none of that.

ThePanjandrum

Christy42 wrote: »

On a hard Brexit will the UK follow WTO rules?

If yes and it does not impose a hard border in Northern Ireland it will in effect be giving the EU 0% tariffs on all goods. Thus by WTO rules it must give everyone 0% tariffs on everything.

If not then no one will bother reciprocating WTO rules and will charge whatever tariffs they like.

I really, really don't give a **** about the UK talking about not putting up a hard border when they refuse to put forward what they are doing in that case. Like the nonsense about the backstop while refusing to ever put forward another option that doesn't result in a hard border.

The UK is lying when it says it won't impose a hard border (as is Leo by the way). It has to put one up. There seems to be a weird game of not admitting it going on. The UK is making decisions that will make both sides put up a hard border.

(And yes the WTO will object because every country will want 0% tariffs into the UK without needing a trade deal).

There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one.
Tariffs can be dealt with separately. If Ireland and the UK are able to control VAT between the two countries then they can control tariffs. Goods can be inspected on loading, unloading or before either of these happen.

Infini

downcow wrote: »

No probs

“(iii) acknowledge that while a substantial section of the people in Northern Ireland share the legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland, the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish; and that it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people;“

And hence if you want to put a referendum to the people of NI as to whether we accept an agreement that contains the backstop then I’m ok with that. But I think I know the answer.

Hard Brexit predicts a majority for UI in the event of a crash out. Thats been in multiple polls on the issue. If push comes to shove over this a border poll could happen within a few months or years after Brexit depending on how bas things go.

Bit cynical

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

There's no requirement under WTO rules to maintain a hard border between countries. If you think there is then please cite one.
Tariffs can be dealt with separately. If Ireland and the UK are able to control VAT between the two countries then they can control tariffs. Goods can be inspected on loading, unloading or before either of these happen.

However the EU might require us to put up the hard border in order to make it fair with other EU countries with a land border with non-EU ones.