Brexit Discussion Thread VI

josip

I see Google will change the legal entity who provides services in January.
Was this a UK based entity up to now?



https://imgur.com/hQRC9hV

10000maniacs

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Serious project for you: Weigh up the consequences of a land border, economically and socially with the consequences of a Sea border.

Serious threat to peace and stability and harsh implications for commerce and business against 'a feeling of being a little less British, repeat: ' a feeling!'.

I.E. There is no comparison here.

I would think that a year of a hard border, no farm subsidies and WTO tariffs would make a lot of Unionist farmers in NI think very hard about joining a United Ireland in a border poll. But I think the vote would still be very close even after a year of hard Brexit.
If I were Sinn Fein, I would wait 5 years after Brexit to lobby for a border poll.

farmchoice

no deal brexit is Bananas, its for the birds,and worse its political suicide of a kind not seen since Charles the first managed to get his head chopped off.


its an effort by May to concentrate minds on her backbenches and make brexiteers come to the conclusion that they better take her deal before the whole thing goes pear-shaped.


any day now they are going to steal a Michael Collins quote and present it as the freedom to achieve freedom ( through the subsequent FTA).


the problem is the DUP, they are not like other politicians, the only hope there is that they come under serious pressure from NI business and the farmers, etc over Christmas. they have never buckled before though.

jm08

josip wrote: »

I see Google will change the legal entity who provides services in January.
Was this a UK based entity up to now?


https://imgur.com/hQRC9hV

It could just be the announcement of the addition of EEA countries and Switzerland in the EU privacy laws.

quokula

Tell me how wrote: »

A car parts plant in Wales announces last month that it is shutting down with the loss of 700 jobs. The BBC did the usual thing of asking some workers for their thoughts as they left. None of them mentioned Brexit.

The area voted 57% to leave the EU.

In fairness it's the BBC - they could have interviewed 500 people, 498 would blame Brexit and the report would show the other two.

FrancieBrady

farmchoice wrote: »

no deal brexit is Bananas, its for the birds,and worse its political suicide of a kind not seen since Charles the first managed to get his head chopped off.


its an effort by May to concentrate minds on her backbenches and make brexiteers come to the conclusion that they better take her deal before the whole thing goes pear-shaped.


any day now they are going to steal a Michael Collins quote and present it as the freedom to achieve freedom ( through the subsequent FTA).


the problem is the DUP, they are not like other politicians, the only hope there is that they come under serious pressure from NI business and the farmers, etc over Christmas. they have never buckled before though.

They have 'buckled' on almost every stand they have taken. The GFA, flegs and parades.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

As someone who voted for the gfa. I am confused about this continual reference about it containing an agreement that there would be no hardening of the border. I understand it said the opposite ie roi for the first time officially recognised it as an international border until (if ever) the people of NI decided otherwise.

Serious question. Could anyone show me the paragraph that prevents a harder border?? (And before you shoot the messenger, I don’t want a harder border, but if you guys are all correct then I was duped because I would not have voted for something that said a border was allowed on Irish Sea instead of Irish border)

The GFA was a bit of a fudge to let both communities in Northern Ireland feel part of their particular nation. The ROI renounced its claim to NI, and the UK reduced the visibility of the border that allowed NI catholics feel more part of their nation.

There is a huge difference between having a border running through your village, farm, house and having a border through a place where people don't have to confront it every day.

Just think of what the reaction would be if the border with the ROI was to be through the middle of someone's garden on the Sandy Row!* How would people feel about that - and that is what has happened to many people along the border (both protestant and catholic).

*I only use Sandy Row as an example that everyone knows is a strongly unionist area.

An Ciarraioch

Meanwhile, the BBC would have no legal basis for broadcasting in the EU if there was no deal, and is holding talks with Irish and Dutch broadcasting authorities:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/bbc-in-talks-with-irish-and-dutch-regulators-in-no-deal-brexit-planning-1.3738550%3Fmode=amp

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

The GFA was a bit of a fudge to let both communities in Northern Ireland feel part of their particular nation. The ROI renounced its claim to NI, and the UK reduced the visibility of the border that allowed NI catholics feel more part of their nation.

There is a huge difference between having a border running through your village, farm, house and having a border through a place where people don't have to confront it every day.

Just think of what the reaction would be if the border with the ROI was to be through the middle of someone's garden on the Sandy Row!* How would people feel about that - and that is what has happened to many people along the border (both protestant and catholic).

*I only use Sandy Row as an example that everyone knows is a strongly unionist area.

I say again. I am not supporting a hard border. I am just saying there is no legal reason why it cannot happen

downcow

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

CelticRambler

While you're around, downcow, and getting away from the border/backstop discussion: you said that you've moved from a neutral position to leaning towards supporting Brexit. What would be the first positive thing you'd want to see (or that you think would happen) under Brexit that would make it worth the risk?

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The CTA continues to exist, you don't need to accept passport controls at Larne because there would be none. There would be increased checks on livestock which your avarage Unionist would never have to interact with.

FreudianSlippers

bob mcbob wrote: »

There won't be ANY UK trucks to block.

From attached article

British lorries would be barred from entering Europe under a no-deal Brexit, according to an industry chief, who warned that British firms would be "crucified" by tariffs if Theresa May fails to secure a deal with the European Union.

James Hookham, deputy chief executive of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), told Business Insider that a no-deal Brexit would see Britain revert to an old set of international arrangements which handed Britain just 103 permits to cover the 300,000 journeys made by British trucks make to Europe every year.

https://www.businessinsider.com/british-trucks-barred-from-europe-under-no-deal-brexit-industry-leader-warns-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

There's a 9-month (IIRC) window implemented now for land freight in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

FreudianSlippers

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Meanwhile, the BBC would have no legal basis for broadcasting in the EU if there was no deal, and is holding talks with Irish and Dutch broadcasting authorities:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/bbc-in-talks-with-irish-and-dutch-regulators-in-no-deal-brexit-planning-1.3738550%3Fmode=amp

A colleague who works in entertainment law was telling me about 2 weeks ago that Sky has moved its broadcasting licence to the Netherlands to continue broadcasting into the EU in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

CelticRambler

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

Yep - the one the RoI electorate voted for, when removing the constitutional claim to the Six Counties. The kind of border that everyone knows is there but is so soft, you barely notice it. That worked our really well for everyone - unionists included - so it makes no sense to contemplate "additional measures" to help unionists accept something that is inherently bad for them when their own representatives are the ones saying it's not bad enough!

A Dub in Glasgo

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The status quo

Why would there be any need for passport checks within NI?

FreudianSlippers

CelticRambler wrote: »

Yep - the one the RoI electorate voted for, when removing the constitutional claim to the Six Counties.

This!

A hard border might not be mentioned in the GFA, but the implementation of one absolutely obliterates the foundations of the GFA.

jm08

downcow wrote: »

I say again. I am not supporting a hard border. I am just saying there is no legal reason why it cannot happen

There is every legal reason for a hard border which will happen if the UK crashes out without some sort of a deal.

The border is just too porous to be able to enforce it. To do so, hundreds of roads would have to be closed. That would be a major disruption to everyone who lives and works in the border area. That is why Ireland wants the backstop because there are British politicians in control in the UK who don't care what happens to any of the people who live on this island and are only using them to meet their own ends.

History repeating itself again:

''What a fool I was! I was only a puppet, and so was Ulster, and so was Ireland, in the political game that was to get the Conservative Party into Power'' - Edward Carson 1921 (on the partition of Ireland).

jm08

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

There won't be passport checks. There would be checks on goods between NI and UK (similarly to what happens now with livestock - NI is completely free of BSE whereas GB is not). NI would retain EU regs and standards and would still be under the jurisdiction of ECJ.

So, basically your Rangers fan won't be bothered, unless they try to import livestock to NI from Scotland.

murphaph

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

There would be NO passport controls at Larne or anywhere between NI<->GB. There would be an increase in checks on goods (there are already checks on animals as NI farmers are more than happy to be considered Irish when GB has one of its (fairly regular) outbreaks of disease.

This is the price of Brexit. Brexit was a close run thing. NI unionists played a significant role in getting it over the line given the overwhelming majority of Brexit supporters in NI are unionists. They did not give the GFA one moment's thought before voting leave.

You know deep down that there is no comparison between checks on goods at NI sea ports and checks on goods along a border with 300 crossing points.

demfad

downcow wrote: »

Help me with something. As a unionist living in NI and committed to peace and good relations with our southern neighbours. When people on here say ‘no hard border’ it implies there is some sort of soft border compromise that they would accept. What are the additional measures that you could contemplate that might help this over the line and help unionists accept passport control, checks, etc within our country eg Larne?

The UK electorate has a right to Brexit that is an internal matter for the UK.

However, the UK does not have a right to breach International treaties. The GFA is a very aspirational document. It is designed to be all things to all people, with compromises throen in. It is in effect a tool to create desired outcomes.
In Strand 2, North/South cooperation and the all Island economy are greatly enhanced by the GFA. By leaving the CU/SM the UK is demolishing this. The GFA (if not breached) is no longer fit for purpose. That said the UK may not be in legal breach of the GFA.

The Irish Government and by extension the whole EU can only protect the parts related to the ROI. So Strand 2 primarily is protected. The leverage we have is to the withdrawal agreement. That is why the backstop is in there.

The softening of any future trade border between NI and GB by providing no checks in NI to GB direction is to specifically make sure that NI is not economically hurt.

Some Unionists may see this as diminishing their parity of esteem. If this is true how can they then insist on a hard border with no backstop which destroys Strand 2 and Irish Citizens parity of esteem in NI?

The best solution to this is for all of the UK to remain in the CU/SM. The UK gave no consideration to Ireland, North or South by trying to impose their red lines.

Failing that the second best situation is the backstop arrangement for ROI and NI. If Unionists feel this is undermining their parity of esteem as UK citizens they should not push for a solution that undermines Irish citizens (resident in NI) parity of esteem.

seamus

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The status quo

Why would there be any need for passport checks within NI?

He's talking about passport checks at entry points in and out of the North. I.e. between NI and the UK.

Is it really that onerous that people arriving in NI via plane or boat would have to go into a "UK & Ireland passport holders" line at arrivals?

Imreoir2

seamus wrote: »

He's talking about passport checks at entry points in and out of the North. I.e. between NI and the UK.

Is it really that onerous that people arriving in NI via plane or boat would have to go into a "UK & Ireland passport holders" line at arrivals?

There would be no need for passport checks anyway, onerous or not.

EdgeCase

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.

There's no federal system and there's always a supremacy of Englishness over Britishness and the two are quite interchangeable when it suits them. For example the central bank isn't the Bank of the UK. It's the Bank of England and there are loads of other examples of this kind of mentality.

They can't even seem to comprehend that UK = the entire country and Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland and persist in doing things like having an olympic team called Team GB not team UK.

In most sports the UK also plays as seperate countries and somehow this is acceptable to international sports in a way that German states (which are legally far more autonomous than Scotland or Wales) are not allowed to do similar.

So even in sport England doesn't consider itself British and there isn't even a proper adjective for UKish.

That mentality is also pretty much also why we ended up declaring independence in the first place too - policy making that was always designed to suit England and that literally fed into a famine here.

Think about it : 1801 Act of Union .... 1840s famine and mass emigration - in the world's biggest super power at the time.

This would be the equivalent of the USA managing to starve a significant chunk of its own population. It was absolute social and economic failure by the UK Government.

Then you had uprisings, and uprisings and eventually Irish nationalism and independence.

The situation in the modern UK is just a less extreme extension of the same problems and there has been a fuzzy devolution process. However, Scotland and Wales are considered by many people in England to be foreign. There's a disjointed notion of 'my precious' union when any of them suggest leaving, but when they are in the union they are largely ignored.

It's a very unusual 'country' and I think Brexit is laying bare for all to see just how divided it actually is both structurally and politically.

They really need to go have a long hard think about what the future of the UK is because it's showing itself at the moment to suffer from huge internal fishers that can easily become fractures.

It's also no wonder they can't manage to comprehend the EU when they can't even manage to pool sovereignty in an equal manner at home.

A Dub in Glasgo

Could not have said it any better myself

prawnsambo

downcow wrote: »

I say again. I am not supporting a hard border. I am just saying there is no legal reason why it cannot happen

Well there actually is. Section 10 of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was signed by the Queen on 26th June this year, specifically prohibits it.

seamus

While a good half of the planet are leaving work with the intention of getting drunk, relaxing with family and forgetting about current affairs, the UK government has taken the opportunity to publish its healthcare plan in the event of a no-deal:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/brexit-operational-readiness-guidance-for-the-health-and-social-care-system-in-england

Choice section noted by a UK healthcare professional;

All health and adult social care providers to:
...
• Direct staff to promote messages of continuity and reassurance to people who use
health and care services, including that they should not store additional medicines at
home

Loose lips sink ships, keep calm and carry on. And so forth.

Asking healthcare providers to be propaganda mouthpieces and assist in rationing medicines. Not because of war, but because of an entirely self-inflicted and voluntary scenario, which they could still avoid with the flick of a pen.

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.......

Yes indeed. Several legal experts have pointed out that Scotland and Northern Ireland should by rights have had a veto over massive constitutional change like Brexit being imposed on them, but as you say, the 'United Kingdom' is a quite bizarre political entity (totally dominated by one country and one parliament).

road_high

EdgeCase wrote: »

Fundementally the problem is the UK doesn't have UK politics. It has English politics and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales are pretty just bolted to it and dragged along.

There's no federal system and there's always a supremacy of Englishness over Britishness and the two are quite interchangeable when it suits them. For example the central bank isn't the Bank of the UK. It's the Bank of England and there are loads of other examples of this kind of mentality.

They can't even seem to comprehend that UK = the entire country and Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland and persist in doing things like having an olympic team called Team GB not team UK.

In most sports the UK also plays as seperate countries and somehow this is acceptable to international sports in a way that German states (which are legally far more autonomous than Scotland or Wales) are not allowed to do similar.

So even in sport England doesn't consider itself British and there isn't even a proper adjective for UKish.

That mentality is also pretty much also why we ended up declaring independence in the first place too - policy making that was always designed to suit England and that literally fed into a famine here.

Think about it : 1801 Act of Union .... 1840s famine and mass emigration - in the world's biggest super power at the time.

This would be the equivalent of the USA managing to starve a significant chunk of its own population. It was absolute social and economic failure by the UK Government.

Then you had uprisings, and uprisings and eventually Irish nationalism and independence.

The situation in the modern UK is just a less extreme extension of the same problems and there has been a fuzzy devolution process. However, Scotland and Wales are considered by many people in England to be foreign. There's a disjointed notion of 'my precious' union when any of them suggest leaving, but when they are in the union they are largely ignored.

It's a very unusual 'country' and I think Brexit is laying bare for all to see just how divided it actually is both structurally and politically.

They really need to go have a long hard think about what the future of the UK is because it's showing itself at the moment to suffer from huge internal fishers that can easily become fractures.

It's also no wonder they can't manage to comprehend the EU when they can't even manage to pool sovereignty in an equal manner at home.

God bless and thanks to our forefathers that got us out (with great difficulty) of that rotten “Union” which is set up to serve England, and serve England first and foremost. It’s only the past few years when I see the reality of Brexit I have begun to have a greater appreciation of what they faced but we did it and 100 years later we are all the better for it

Strazdas

road_high wrote: »

God bless and thanks to our forefathers that got us out (with great difficulty) of that rotten “Union” which is set up to serve England, and serve England first and foremost. It’s only the past few years when I see the reality of Brexit I have begun to have a greater appreciation of what they faced but we did it and 100 years later we are all the better for it

Agree completely. There has been a huge amount of debate over the years as to whether the Irish state did the right thing breaking away and as to whether it might have been better going down the Home Rule route but most historians are coming around to the idea that the state becoming an independent republic was the best thing that could have happened. It's becoming very clear the country would be ignored and pushed around if it had maintained any link to the UK.