Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

If only there was a party from NI that had some power in the House of Commons right now and has the ear of the PM, they could then ask her to authorize a referendum for the people of NI on whether they want the backstop to be inserted or not.

I have bad news for you though, your side will not win that argument.

He has made it infinitely clear over the last few months that NI's vote on something is irrelevant. Because the UK voted for Brexit, so did NI.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

If only there was a party from NI that had some power in the House of Commons right now and has the ear of the PM, they could then ask her to authorize a referendum for the people of NI on whether they want the backstop to be inserted or not.

I have bad news for you though, your side will not win that argument.





I guess the argument is that the HoC doesn't have to ask the people of NI whether they want to Brexit so the backstop would be in the same argument. If you don't have to ask the people of NI about whether they want to be taken out of the EU against their will you don't have to ask them about the backstop.

61% of people in NI want Brexit abandoned if it means a hard border.

liamtech

Calina wrote: »

UK is then in contravention.

Yes it is. Thats why i honestly cant see a way out.

the back stop would work, but the HOC wont vote for it

Remaining in the Common Market would work but the HOC definitely wont go for it

A time limit on the Back stop MIGHT go through the HOC, but the EU cant/wont go for it and neither will the ROI

No deal forces a border, by default, which would be in contravention of the GFA

VonZan

downcow wrote: »

Ok so let’s be honest with each other and answer questions in an adult manner.
If the gfa allowed a hard border, would you/roi say ok let’s have a hard border to facilitate a smooth brexit?
...and if you wouldn’t agree to hard border in those circumstances then you are simply useing the gfa to suit your agenda

The GFA is part of an agenda. An agenda of peace and putting behind years of attempted colonialism and hell in Northern Ireland. How can you attempt to have an honest discussion when nobody including those that want Brexit really know what it means.

Ireland will fight the UK on Brexit to the very end and we should not allow the UK to unilaterally change the status of Northern Ireland, particularly when the people of Northern Ireland voted against Brexit.

First Up

What is uncivil about suggesting someone learn what they are talking about?

People born in Northern Ireland have been entitled to Irish passports since 1935.

It was incorporated into the GFA, not introduced because of it.

woohoo!!!

Calina wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

Ok so let’s be honest with each other and answer questions in an adult manner.
If the gfa allowed a hard border, would you/roi say ok let’s have a hard border to facilitate a smooth brexit?
...and if you wouldn’t agree to hard border in those circumstances then you are simply useing the gfa to suit your agenda

The GFA does not allow a hard border. This is a nonsense question.

Nope, the GFA does not say anything about a border. It can be argued that Brexit breaches the spirit of the GFA but it does not breech the text. Of course Brexit puts a greater strain on Stormont being restored as SF are content to sit back and see where the cards fall and watch the DUP pissing off NI farmers for example.

liamtech

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Nope, the GFA does not say anything about a border. It can be argued that Brexit breaches the spirit of the GFA but it does not breech the text. Of course Brexit puts a greater strain on Stormont being restored as SF are content to sit back and see where the cards fall and watch the DUP pissing off NI farmers for example.

You may technically be correct by at the time, a hard border was not an issue that needed to concern the negotiating teams. Both jurisdictions were within the EU. So i think it is more than the 'spirit' of the GFA being violated.. and like i said, no deal, requires Ireland/EU to protect the integrity of the Common Market

downcow

CelticRambler wrote: »

OK, if you took "lots of pain" from the GFA, would it be reasonable to say that you still see it as something negative; and if so, would you support a move to remove your special status as a NI-resident, so that you can be more like the British in Britain?

If there was not a significant nationalist minority in NI then of course we would be like Scotland wales England. But there is and on that basis I continue to support the gfa - I don’t worship it and it has many serious flaws that need sorted eg institutionalising sectarianism in Stormont.
So yes I wish we didn’t need a gfa but I believe in compromise

Just on the point of people’s admiration on here for gfa. I guess you all know that if ire, UK, unionists and nationalists had behaved the way Eu and ire are behaving now with regard ‘ here’s the final agreement and we won’t discuss it any more’ the there would have been no gfa
One lesson we learnt here is no matter how unpalatable or threatening it feels always be prepared to negotiate. Take not Eu / ire

Kermit.de.frog

Is it possible the EU does not want a deal and would rather make an example? UK hurt far more with no deal.

woohoo!!!

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Nope, the GFA does not say anything about a border. It can be argued that Brexit breaches the spirit of the GFA but it does not breech the text. Of course Brexit puts a greater strain on Stormont being restored as SF are content to sit back and see where the cards fall and watch the DUP pissing off NI farmers for example.

It is obviously ridiculous for anyone to claim that the border be even included. Even if it came up in conversation during the time, it would have been scoffed at by both parties.

Can you imagine some guy in the room perking up and suggesting "Should we cover the possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU decades down the road?" What. It would have been seen as ludicrous and inciteful.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd say the foreign aid budget will go first. It was UKIP's only non-Brexit policy.

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."
- Charles Dickens, David Copperfield

The HMG's income is down €500m a week from where it should be since the referendum. If only they had a magic money tree.

There was the £4Bn they gave to Southern Africa to get that potential trade deal. There's the £5Bn they'll need to replace Galileo. £10Bn for NI. £22Bn extra for the NHS.

And £104m for Brexit consultants.


January income is up (Brexit stockpiling and contingency plans?) , but so too is borrowing

The ONS added that public sector net debt increased by £40.5bn to £1.8tn in January, equivalent to 82.6% of gross domestic product (GDP).

downcow

liamtech wrote: »

You may technically be correct by at the time, a hard border was not an issue that needed to concern the negotiating teams. Both jurisdictions were within the EU. So i think it is more than the 'spirit' of the GFA being violated.. and like i said, no deal, requires Ireland/EU to protect the integrity of the Common Market

Yeah exactly same spirit that says unionists should not have additional checks before entering the rest of the UK.
I know it’s a very difficult circle to square but we have no hope until we recognise eaches sensitivities

liamtech

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is it possible the EU does not want a deal and would rather make an example? UK hurt far more with no deal.

In my opinion no. Honestly i dont see that.

I think they are annoyed and Tusks 'special place in hell' comment exemplifies that.

But i honestly think they expected/hoped Mays deal would go through.. and are now AGHAST that she is back, with no clear roadmap on what she wants

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Is it possible the EU does not want a deal and would rather make an example? UK hurt far more with no deal.

The UK hurts plenty even with the best deal they could get.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

If there was not a significant nationalist minority in NI then of course we would be like Scotland wales England. But there is and on that basis I continue to support the gfa - I don’t worship it and it has many serious flaws that need sorted eg institutionalising sectarianism in Stormont.
So yes I wish we didn’t need a gfa but I believe in compromise

Just on the point of people’s admiration on here for gfa. I guess you all know that if ire, UK, unionists and nationalists had behaved the way Eu and ire are behaving now with regard ‘ here’s the final agreement and we won’t discuss it any more’ the there would have been no gfa
One lesson we learnt here is no matter how unpalatable or threatening it feels always be prepared to negotiate. Take not Eu / ire

Again with the misrepresentation.

Two years of negotiations and compromise and the team of UK negotiators and your PM stood up and agreed a deal...nobody said 'here's the final agreement and we won't discuss it any more'.

The EU have simply asked that your PM and team get the deal THEY WERE HAPPY with ratified by your parliament.

That your PM can't is nobody else's problem but your PM's.

liamtech

downcow wrote: »

Yeah exactly same spirit that says unionists should not have additional checks before entering the rest of the UK.
I know it’s a very difficult circle to square but we have no hope until we recognise eaches sensitivities

I wouldnt dispute that at all honestly - i can see the unionist position here - NI is part of the UK and therefore shouldnt be treated differently

But on your comment of squaring the circle, i dont think we can, for reasons that many have outlined.

No-Deal Brexit or NO Backstop Brexit is ultimately incompatible with the GFA

woohoo!!!

liamtech wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Nope, the GFA does not say anything about a border. It can be argued that Brexit breaches the spirit of the GFA but it does not breech the text. Of course Brexit puts a greater strain on Stormont being restored as SF are content to sit back and see where the cards fall and watch the DUP pissing off NI farmers for example.

You may technically be correct by at the time, a hard border was not an issue that needed to concern the negotiating teams. Both jurisdictions were within the EU. So i think it is more than the 'spirit' of the GFA being violated.. and like i said, no deal, requires Ireland/EU to protect the integrity of the Common Market

Depending on what future deal between the EU and UK achieves. There will need to be bilateral negotiations around CTA I feel and an updated agreement based on GFA to get Stormont up and running. Failure will increase pressure for a border poll.

Calina

liamtech wrote: »

In my opinion no. Honestly i dont see that.

I think they are annoyed and Tusks 'special place in hell' comment exemplifies that.

But i honestly think they expected/hoped Mays deal would go through.. and are now AGHAST that she is back, with no clear roadmap on what she wants

I tend to agree with this. The WA was the straightforward part: wind down of relationship and framework for future relationship negotiations.

The past two years of reading British pieces on this suggests that a lot of people skipped over the need for wind down and are trying to negotiate the future first. The EU woukd prefer stability on both sides of the negotiating table and akso the assumption that whoever is present speaks for whom they are representing.

This has not happened.

liamtech

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Depending on what future deal between the EU and UK achieves. There will need to be bilateral negotiations around CTA I feel and an updated agreement based on GFA to get Stormont up and running. Failure will increase pressure for a border poll.

But was that not the purpose of the backstop? Status quo remains indefinitely until a solution is found? Now the HOC want a limit on the backstop, but all that does is defer the problem for another day. and i honestly do not believe the circle can be squared

20silkcut

downcow wrote: »

Ok so let’s be honest with each other and answer questions in an adult manner.
If the gfa allowed a hard border, would you/roi say ok let’s have a hard border to facilitate a smooth brexit?
...and if you wouldn’t agree to hard border in those circumstances then you are simply useing the gfa to suit your agenda

If a hard border was no big deal and frictionless and manned by unicorns with x ray cameras and scanners then we would all be happy and get on with our lives but I think that particular bubble is well burst at this stage.

woohoo!!!

Deleted User wrote: »

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Nope, the GFA does not say anything about a border. It can be argued that Brexit breaches the spirit of the GFA but it does not breech the text. Of course Brexit puts a greater strain on Stormont being restored as SF are content to sit back and see where the cards fall and watch the DUP pissing off NI farmers for example.

It is obviously ridiculous for anyone to claim that the border be even included. Even if it came up in conversation during the time, it would have been scoffed at by both parties.

Can you imagine some guy in the room perking up and suggesting "Should we cover the possibility of the UK crashing out of the EU decades down the road?" What. It would have been seen as ludicrous and inciteful.

The assumption of CU&SM along with continued memership underpinned it, yes. It will be more difficult to work GFA and impossible without the will needed to.

If someone says Brexit breaches GFA and in the next breath demand a border poll, then one can ask it either is or isn't breached, so which is it?

Calina

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Depending on what future deal between the EU and UK achieves. There will need to be bilateral negotiations around CTA I feel and an updated agreement based on GFA to get Stormont up and running. Failure will increase pressure for a border poll.

I am not sure I agree here. Establishment of nonEU nationals is a national competence so the CTA is not likely to be a huge issue although if 6 million Brits want to move to Ireland, we will have a practical problem.

For NI, that could be more nuanced. The reliance on the DUP calls the UK government's role as a disinterested arbiter into question while Stormont is suspended.

But tbh, I think these things may be down the line. I think if the UK does run European Elections, having obtained an extension past 1 July, they will be a long way down the line.

woohoo!!!

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The assumption of CU&SM along with continued memership underpinned it, yes. It will be more difficult to work GFA and impossible without the will needed to.

If someone says Brexit breaches GFA and in the next breath demand a border poll, then one can ask it either is or isn't breached, so which is it?

A border poll is not only possible because of the GFA. One could still be called.

liamtech

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The assumption of CU&SM along with continued memership underpinned it, yes. It will be more difficult to work GFA and impossible without the will needed to.

If someone says Brexit breaches GFA and in the next breath demand a border poll, then one can ask it either is or isn't breached, so which is it?

in my opinion, Brexit with no deal or no backstop, does actually violate the GFA. No deal =instant hard border to protect the common market - limited backstop pushes discussion and ultimate disagreement/incompatibility to another day

Where as the idea of a Border Poll is included within the GFA itself.

Happy to stand corrected, and i know that politics is being played by many sides in this but that is my interpretation of this

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Yeah exactly same spirit that says unionists should not have additional checks before entering the rest of the UK.
I know it’s a very difficult circle to square but we have no hope until we recognise eaches sensitivities

What checks do you mean, between NI and the UK?

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Yeah exactly same spirit that says unionists should not have additional checks before entering the rest of the UK.
I know it’s a very difficult circle to square but we have no hope until we recognise eaches sensitivities

One of the principals here - Arlene Foster, has called that an 'existential problem' for Unionism...i.e. it only exists in your head, it is NOT a physical thing and it has been stated by the highest law official you have got, that it does NOT affect the constitutional position of NI.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK hurts plenty even with the best deal they could get.

Brexit has cost them 80 billion to date and that's before they've even left.

Professor Moriarty

liamtech wrote: »

in my opinion, Brexit with no deal or no backstop, does actually violate the GFA. No deal =instant hard border to protect the common market - limited backstop pushes discussion and ultimate disagreement/incompatibility to another day

Where as the idea of a Border Poll is included within the GFA itself.

Happy to stand corrected, and i know that politics is being played by many sides in this but that is my interpretation of this

The text does not mention a hard border but the spirit of the agreement, which May has emphasised Britain will adhere to, demands that there is no hard border.

RobMc59

Calina wrote: »

The GFA does not allow a hard border. This is a nonsense question.

If that is the case then wouldn't enforcing a hard border contravene the GFA?

reslfj

Deleted User wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

i wasn’t aware I would need anything additional to a Dubliner to live and work in Eu???

In five weeks, you will for anything on the European mainland, just as CR said. Is this news to you?

If the the WA is approved by the UK, there will be no practical changes until the end of 2020 and likely until the end of 2022 (transition, extended transition)
If you have or get an Irish passport you are Irish except in the UK, where you are considered British (normal rule for dual citizenship).

Travel from the CTA to Schengen or to non Schengen EU26 countries has nothing to do with EU's FoM concept.

Visa/visa waiver rules will apply. Even a UK passport will almost certainly allow 90 days stay as tourist or for business even in case of a 'no deal'.
The EU will under 'no deal' likely issue passport only rules unilaterally - expecting the UK to issue equivalent rules for EU27 citizens.

The EU has plans for an European online version of the US ESTA visa waiver system and that may in the future cost UK passport holders a little (less the €10/3yrs AFAIR).
But again not relevant for Irish passport holders.

Lars