Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

. . .I don't see any other way than the EU model and for that to work effectively against the competing US model, federal arrangement will be necessary sooner or later - it is not about if but about when and this is what will be actively debated in the EU in coming years. Realistically, I would say we are at least 20 years away, but I an confident we will see further integrationist steps taken as we move on.

I'd query this bit. Isn't the EU model already "working effectively competing against the US model"? I don't see that a federal arrangement is necessary sooner or later for this.

I think there may be a different argument for federalism, though. As long as the EU model is created and enforced by supranational institutions, there's a democratic deficit. Sure, governments which are democratically elected and democratically accountable control this process through the Council of Ministers, but in relation to matters in which you have qualified majority voting, you have the possibility of a measure which a particular national government (lets, say, the government of Ireland, though of course it could be any member state) opposes being adopted by qualified majority and imposed on all member states.

Is there a democratic mandate for the implementation of this measure in Ireland? Yes, there is; the constitutional provision for ratification of the Treaty allowing qualified majority voting. But the actual formation of the policy is quite remote in democratic terms from the people of Ireland. They didn't have this particular policy in mind when they voted to approve the Treaty, obviously. Nor, probably, did they have this policy in mind when the voted in the most recent Irish general election. That election erturned a Dail Eireann which elected (and can remove) a Taoiseach, who nominated ministers who form the government who participate in the Council of Minister which adopted this policy over the negative vote of the Irish government. So there's several layers of national and supranational institutions between the voters and the policy they don't like, and they may feel their interests have not been adequately considered in the adoption of the policy.

The way to combat this is by creating more direct representative structures, and by those structures being given a greater degree of power within the EU - so, a directly elected parliament, with an increased role in adopting or rejecting EU law. And in fact we have been going down this route. But the more you create democratic structures which link the citizens directly to EU law- and policy-making, bypassing national governments, the more the EU starts to resemble a federal state.

In short, I think the drive to federalism doesn't stem from a need to enable the EU system to compete with the US system or the Chinese system. These systems don't need to be democratically-controlled in order to be viable or competitive (as the China example shows). No, the need for democratic control arises because we think that democratic control is necessary in and of itself; if the EU is powerful, than power should be democratically conferred and democratically held to account, and increasing federalisation looks like the route to acheive that.

It's stomach turning that ignorant Brexit-voting English nationalists like the Flemming guy in this Irish Times article are being facilitated in their hypocrisy by our passport legislation:

‘My children say I’m hypocritical’: Brexit and the Irish passport rush

Once again, Irish legislators have been asleep at the wheel. They should cut eligibility to Irish passports off to all British people who first applied for one after the Brexit result, and refuse to renew it for such people who have been given this Get out of Jail free card by the Irish state.

It's a complete mockery that the Irish state is facilitating their escaping one of the key negative consequences of their country's Europhobia. Change Irish passport law now.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

It's stomach turning that ignorant Brexit-voting English nationalists like the Flemming guy in this Irish Times article are being facilitated in their hypocrisy by our passport legislation:

‘My children say I’m hypocritical’: Brexit and the Irish passport rush

Once again, Irish legislators have been asleep at the wheel. They should cut eligibility to Irish passports off to all British people who first applied for one after the Brexit result, and refuse to renew it for such people who have been given this Get out of Jail free card by the Irish state.

It's a complete mockery that the Irish state is facilitating their escaping one of the key negative consequences of their country's Europhobia. Change Irish passport law now.

What you want is a modification to Irish citizenship law. The State cannot, except in very limited circumstances, refuse a passport to a citizen.

So, what you're calling for is to change the law so that people born in the UK who have not already citizens of Ireland cannot now become so based on their descent. But even this would not go far enough; the guy mentioned in the article had a mother born in Athlone. The article says that he "applied for Irish citizenship", but in fact that's not correct. He was an Irish citizen from birth; he did not need to apply for citizenship. He just applied for a passport. So the only way to deny him a passport would be to pass a law stripping citizenship from him (and, presumably, from every other Irish citizen-by-descent who had not applied for a passport before the Brexit referendum). Which seems a bit drastic, and would undoubedly be controversial. And, obviously, would adversely UK remainers of Irish descent in the same way as it would effect Brexiters of Irish descent.

Zubeneschamali

Larbre34 wrote: »

So, if Brexit happens at all, it will be soft and the post WA transition period will bring about a negotiated mutuality on many areas that affect the daily lives of ordinary punters, so that the Express and Telegraph readers will spend the next 10 years moaning about how diluted it was while never actually having been presented with the reality of how life changing it could have been.

That would be fine by me! They get the benefits of a close relationship with the EU, like Norway or Switzerland, we get no recession and no more foot-dragging from the English within the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Once again, Irish legislators have been asleep at the wheel. They should cut eligibility to Irish passports off to all British people who first applied for one after the Brexit result, and refuse to renew it for such people who have been given this Get out of Jail free card by the Irish state.

I have a radical idea in the opposite direction: the EU should create a class of EU citizenship independent of member-state citizenship and offer an EU passport to everyone in the UK.


If the UK wants to retreat into isolation and xenophobia, taking 60 million EU citizens out of the Union, the EU should throw them a lifeline and let the citizens remain if they want to.


Allowing these British folks to live and work in the EU is a good idea even if the UK does not reciprocate.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have a radical idea in the opposite direction: the EU should create a class of EU citizenship independent of member-state citizenship and offer an EU passport to everyone in the UK.


If the UK wants to retreat into isolation and xenophobia, taking 60 million EU citizens out of the Union, the EU should throw them a lifeline and let the citizens remain if they want to.


Allowing these British folks to live and work in the EU is a good idea even if the UK does not reciprocate.

This would require a treaty amendment, which wouldn't be easy to negotiate or secure agreement on.

It's also a radical change to the nature of EU citizenship, which to date is intrinsically linked to citizenship of a member state. We'd need to rethink what EU citizenship means, and how it works, for people with no connection to a member state. How, for example, would "free-floating" EU citizens be represented in the Parliament? Who would organise elections for them? How would the EU go about enforcing their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms without the co-operation of the UK government and courts? How would EU citizenship descend to children, etc? In what circumstances could it be lost or revoked? And as both EU and UK citizens they'd have rights in relation to trade, movement, etc as between the EU and the UK that "ordinary" EU citizens wouldn't have. How would that be acceptable?

Finally, there'd be an international question. An "EU passport" issued to someone who was not a citizen of any EU member state would be of dubious status, internationally. The government of, e.g. the US is not obliged to have regard to the EU's claims to speak for or provide services to people who are citizens of non-member states of the EU. There's a risk, to put it no higher,that the general concept of EU citizenship would be devalued if the EU sought to extend it beyond those who are citizens of EU member states, leading other countries to refuse to accord respect to such claims in cases wher it did not suit them to do so.

On balance, I'm of the view that the way for UK citizens to retain or recover their EU citizenship is to organise through democratic means to revoke or reverse the UK's Brexit decision.

Well it doesn't have to be a passport. Just a work and residence paper. Since the UK is so picky about their immigrants, it can have some minimum requirements. Brain drain here we go.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Brain drain here we go.

That's the idea, but not just for super high qualified brain surgeons.


Building sites, canneries, tulip bulb packing - the EU needs less qualified workers too. Why not let young UK people take these jobs and travel in Europe? They do that in Australia all the time, lets get them doing it across Europe.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

Well yes. That is the meaning of 'customs union'.

So do you want to clarify what you mean by being able to negotiate external trade deals as a member of one?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Finally, there'd be an international question. An "EU passport" issued to someone who was not a citizen of any EU member state would be of dubious status, internationally.

True, and outside the EU, maybe no-one would recognize it, they could rely on their "home" citizenship.


As Ads says, it could be an EU-wide work/residence permit. Just put it in a Burgundy passport-style cover with the EU stars on the front, and post one to everyone in the UK on Brexit day.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it doesn't have to be a passport. Just a work and residence paper. Since the UK is so picky about their immigrants, it can have some minimum requirements. Brain drain here we go.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As Ads says, it could be an EU-wide work/residence permit. Just put it in a Burgundy passport-style cover with the EU stars on the front, and post one to everyone in the UK on Brexit day.

An EU/UK Association Agreement or similar could certainly give UK citizens rights of residence, work rights, etc in the EU, even (assuming the EU were willing) if the UK did not reciprocate.

However in a no-deal Brexit there won't, by definition, be an Association Agreeement (or any other kind of agreement). In this situation, I think there's limited legal basis on which the EU could tell its member states what migration policies to apply to UK citizens. The EU can set visa rules for Schengen countries, so could give UK citizens a right of visa-free entry for indefinite stays, but cannot I think go so far as to confer rights of residence or work rights on third country citizens. That would be a matter for each member state.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

So do you want to clarify what you mean by being able to negotiate external trade deals as a member of one?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's in a customs union for manufactured goods and for those it takes EU rules that it has no say in. And wait at the hard border for checks on goods and passports. But no tariffs on the goods.

For other stuff like agriculture it's not in a customs union.
And it's only on those things they can make external trade deals on.

They can make deals on services too. Which is outside the remit of the WTO and in which the UK would also be a big exporter.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think there's limited legal basis on which the EU could tell its member states what migration policies to apply to UK citizens.

Even if the EU can't tell member states this, they could volunteer and the EU could co-ordinate.


We in Ireland will not limit FoM to/from the UK, and it would be in other member countries own interests to do the same.


And it would look great to young people in the UK, people we should try to keep onside for when the UK inevitably applies to rejoin.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote:

That would be fine by me! They get the benefits of a close relationship with the EU, like Norway or Switzerland, we get no recession and no more foot-dragging from the English within the EU.

Yes, I still think that EEA kind of relation would be the best for everyone (basically EU minus political integration which seems to be what the UK wants) but the point is that HMG will never agree to it and a point can be made that EEA is pointless because EU membership is better, cheaper and enables UK to shape EEA legislation and rules.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Even if the EU can't tell member states this, they could volunteer and the EU could co-ordinate.

We in Ireland will not limit FoM to/from the UK, and it would be in other member countries own interests to do the same.

And it would look great to young people in the UK, people we should try to keep onside for when the UK inevitably applies to rejoin.

I'm not sure that it would be in the interests of EU member states, since by exending this unilaterally they forgo the possiblity of making reciprocity a condition. We don't have that problem, since the UK does reciprocate for us (which is why it's in our interests to do what we do).

Plus, I'm not sure it's a good idea for the EU or its members to adopt a policy of mitigating the consequences of Brexit for the UK or its citizens. That just tends to shield the UK political establishment of accountability for the choices it has made - not only the choice to Brexit, but also the choice not to make an agreement about this - and also absolves UK citizens of their civic responsiblity to exercise effective control over the UK political establishment and political institutions. If UK citizens will not ensure that their government will protect their rights and defend their interests, they cannot look to the EU to do it for them.

Water John

Ivan Rodgers is always good for a bit of clarity. basically TM and her advisors totally misunderstood the negotiating mechanisms of the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/04/theresa-may-did-not-understand-eu-when-she-triggered-brexit

20silkcut

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think the minor matter of extinguishing our status as one of the world's 195 independent, sovereign countries should be a question asked of the people to be honest.

They might not want that yet this is the direction of travel.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing but the population should decide.

In fairness the Irish electorate continue to elect governments on mandates that never include commitments to defense or increased investment in our military.
Defense of our sovereignty is not an issue for Irish people.
Even at the height of the troubles.
Was it on this forum I read that a study was done in 1969/70 which came to the conclusion that the best the Irish Army could do, in terms of military intervention in the North, was hold Newry for 24 hours before eventual capitulation. That was when our army was over 13,000. What is it now ? 7/7500??And they are poorly paid.
And even with that low level of military spending we still have budget shortfalls. Imagine if we suddenly had to up our defense budget to the demands that Trump wants of NATO members.
If we became strategically important in any future conflict I think you would see our sovereignty dissapear in the blink of an eye. The only issue is would it be the UK or an EU army who controls it.
The UK hold all the cards logistically.

Peregrinus

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, I still think that EEA kind of relation would be the best for everyone (basically EU minus political integration which seems to be what the UK wants) but the point is that HMG will never agree to it and a point can be made that EEA is pointless because EU membership is better, cheaper and enables UK to shape EEA legislation and rules.

Well, except it's obviously not pointless for Norway.

And this is highly relevant, since the Norway option was basically crafted by Norway for Norway in recognition of the fact that the country was narrowly but deeply divided over EU membership. So they came up with an external relationship with the EU which respects the wish of the majority not to be members, and delivers some of the things the majority wants from non-membership, while also addressing the concerns of the minority by delivering a close relationship with the EU which protects them from some of the feared consequences of non-membership. And while it doesn't give either side everything it wants, it enjoys broad support because both sides recognise that it gives them some of what they want, while also endeavouring to respect the concerns of those who want something else. Which in Norwegian political culture is seen as a virtue.

If only the UK had the political culture of Norway, it would be a happier and a healthier place.

irelandrover

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I have a radical idea in the opposite direction: the EU should create a class of EU citizenship independent of member-state citizenship and offer an EU passport to everyone in the UK.


If the UK wants to retreat into isolation and xenophobia, taking 60 million EU citizens out of the Union, the EU should throw them a lifeline and let the citizens remain if they want to.


Allowing these British folks to live and work in the EU is a good idea even if the UK does not reciprocate.

Something like this was brought to court in the Netherlands.

British citizens argued that their EU citizenship couldnt be taken away by Brexit.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/01/more-british-nationals-in-court-to-keep-european-citizenship-post-brexit/

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

In fairness the Irish electorate continue to elect governments on mandates that never include commitments to defense or increased investment in our military.
Defense of our sovereignty is not an issue for Irish people.
Even at the height of the troubles.
Was it on this forum I read that a study was done in 1969/70 which came to the conclusion that the best the Irish Army could do, in terms of military intervention in the North, was hold Newry for 24 hours before eventual capitulation. That was when our army was over 13,000. What is it now ? 7/7500??And they are poorly paid. We need friends.
And even with that low level of military spending we still have budget shortfalls. Imagine if we suddenly had to up our defense budget to the demands that Trump wants of NATO members.
If we became strategically important in any future conflict I think you would see our sovereignty dissapear in the blink of an eye. The only issue is would it be the UK or an EU army who controls it.
The UK hold all the cards logistically.

Yes, but it's time for a dose of realism here. If we doubled or trebled our defence expenditure and our military capacity, would that make a significant impact on the balance of advantage that would lie with any of our likely antagonists? No, it would not. So, what would be the point of such an increase in expenditure?

If we've learned nothing else over the last 800 years it's that we will never be a match for the UK in a conventional conflict. The disparity of population and resources is simply too great. And the same is necessarily even more true for any possible enemy that could attack us from beyond the UK.

I don't think it's true to say that defence of our sovereignty is not important to Irish people. Rather, Irish people are not so delusional as to imagine that we can defend our sovereignty with conventional military forces - at least, not against any enemy likely to attack it with conventional military forces. We need other strategies.

Seth Brundle

Toyota are now the latest to reconsider their manufacturing operations within a no-deal Brexit UK...

New blow to UK car industry as Toyota warns on no-deal Brexit
Building new models in UK will be ‘extremely complicated’

One of Toyota’s top executives has warned a no-deal Brexit would make it “extremely complicated” to build new models at its British plants in the latest blow to the health of the UK car industry.

The warning by Japan’s biggest carmaker that no-deal makes it less likely it will manufacture additional models in the UK follows Nissan’s recent reversal of a 2016 decision to build a sport utility vehicle in Sunderland and Honda’s planned Swindon closure.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/new-blow-to-uk-car-industry-as-toyota-warns-on-no-deal-brexit-1.3814801

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, but it's time for a dose of realism here. If we doubled or trebled our defence expenditure and our military capacity, would that make a significant impact on the balance of advantage that would lie with any of our likely antagonists? No, it would not. So, what would be the point of such an increase in expenditure?

If we've learned nothing else over the last 800 years it's that we will never be a match for the UK in a conventional conflict. The disparity of population and resources is simply too great. And the same is necessarily even more true for any possible enemy that could attack us from beyond the UK.

I don't think it's true to say that defence of our sovereignty is not important to Irish people. Rather, Irish people are not so delusional as to imagine that we can defend our sovereignty with conventional military forces - at least, not against any enemy likely to attack it with conventional military forces. We need other strategies.

I agree wholeheartedly and in fairness our governments down through the years have done well on these other strategies.

IREXIT fantasists etc etc would do well to be reminded of this reality.

Peregrinus

irelandrover wrote: »

Something like this was brought to court in the Netherlands.

British citizens argued that their EU citizenship couldnt be taken away by Brexit.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/01/more-british-nationals-in-court-to-keep-european-citizenship-post-brexit/

That case is over. The Dutch court refused to refer the question to the European Court of Justice (which is what the claimants were seeking), ruling that the relief they actually wanted in the Netherlands was clarification of their post-Brexit residence status under Netherlands law, which they can get from the Netherlands authorities.

iguana

Peregrinus wrote: »

How, for example, would "free-floating" EU citizens be represented in the Parliament? Who would organise elections for them? How would the EU go about enforcing their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms without the co-operation of the UK government and courts?

This is something I've been wondering about with regard to NI. Almost everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to claim an Irish passport. And if/when Brexit happens the odds are that more and more people will take this opportunity. Regardless of nationality they identify with, the opportunities and rights that will come with the Irish passport that will no longer come with a UK on will be too great to ignore and not take advantage of. This has the potential to create a situation where maybe half of the population of this part of the UK are also EU citizens. What sort of obligations may the EU have if tensions escalate in NI? If there are human rights breaches? A return to militarised zones around the border, quasi states of martial law in places. What if a British soldier shoots an EU citizen dead?

If NI gets to anything close to a situation it was in during the Troubles, does the EU have an obligation to step in and ensure the rights of what will be a massive population of it's citizens?

Nody

iguana wrote: »

This is something I've been wondering about with regard to NI. Almost everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to claim an Irish passport. And if/when Brexit happens the odds are that more and more people will take this opportunity. Regardless of nationality they identify with, the opportunities and rights that will come with the Irish passport that will no longer come with a UK on will be too great to ignore and not take advantage of. This has the potential to create a situation where maybe half of the population of this part of the UK are also EU citizens. What sort of obligations may the EU have if tensions escalate in NI? If there are human rights breaches? A return to militarised zones around the border, quasi states of martial law in places. What if a British soldier shoots an EU citizen dead?

If NI gets to anything close to a situation it was in during the Troubles, does the EU have an obligation to step in and ensure the rights of what will be a massive population of it's citizens?

In short; none. The long answer is that they are considered dual Irish citizens and it's the Irish state that's responsible for how it's own citizens are treated and not EU's responsibility as it's not a centralized power. Change the issue to for example Irish citizen in Syria; does EU have any responsibility for what happens to an Irish person in Syria? No. The same applies here; if a third party country shoots an Irish citizen EU may decide on political actions (see reaction to Skripal poisoning by Russia) but they have zero obligations to do so; it's a national affair and national responsibility in which EU has no authority.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

They can make deals on services too. Which is outside the remit of the WTO and in which the UK would also be a big exporter.

The UK already sells services worldwide. What trade "deals" do you expect that will improve on its current access to those markets?

I hope they are good ones because they will probably have to replace a lot of the business they currently do within the EU.

Peregrinus

iguana wrote: »

This is something I've been wondering about with regard to NI. Almost everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to claim an Irish passport. And if/when Brexit happens the odds are that more and more people will take this opportunity. Regardless of nationality they identify with, the opportunities and rights that will come with the Irish passport that will no longer come with a UK on will be too great to ignore and not take advantage of. This has the potential to create a situation where maybe half of the population of this part of the UK are also EU citizens. What sort of obligations may the EU have if tensions escalate in NI? If there are human rights breaches? A return to militarised zones around the border, quasi states of martial law in places. What if a British soldier shoots an EU citizen dead?

If NI gets to anything close to a situation it was in during the Troubles, does the EU have an obligation to step in and ensure the rights of what will be a massive population of it's citizens?

Nody wrote: »

In short; none. The long answer is that they are considered dual Irish citizens and it's the Irish state that's responsible for how it's own citizens are treated and not EU's responsibility as it's not a centralized power. Change the issue to for example Irish citizen in Syria; does EU have any responsibility for what happens to an Irish person in Syria? No. The same applies here; if a third party country shoots an Irish citizen EU may decide on political actions (see reaction to Skripal poisoning by Russia) but they have zero obligations to do so; it's a national affair and national responsibility in which EU has no authority.

The great majority of the population of NI are already Irish citizens. Those born in NI before 2005 = i.e. every over 14 - are Irish citizens. Those born after that date are entitled to Irish citizenship, an entitlement which is converted to actual citizenship by doing something that only a citizen can do - principally, applying for an Irish passport, or voting in an Irish election.

The result is that immediately after Brexit Northern Ireland will be a region outside the EU in which a majority of the population - and virtually the entire adult population - will be EU citizens. I'm pretty sure that this is not a situation which has arisen before, and it may in time lead to some development in law or policy - whether through European Council decisions or ECJ decisions - which clarify the rights/entitlements/obligations of EU citizens residing outside the Union. But for obvious reasons the EU will be very slow to foster developments which put them at odds with the UK government.

blackwhite

iguana wrote: »

This is something I've been wondering about with regard to NI. Almost everyone in Northern Ireland is entitled to claim an Irish passport. And if/when Brexit happens the odds are that more and more people will take this opportunity. Regardless of nationality they identify with, the opportunities and rights that will come with the Irish passport that will no longer come with a UK on will be too great to ignore and not take advantage of. This has the potential to create a situation where maybe half of the population of this part of the UK are also EU citizens. What sort of obligations may the EU have if tensions escalate in NI? If there are human rights breaches? A return to militarised zones around the border, quasi states of martial law in places. What if a British soldier shoots an EU citizen dead?

If NI gets to anything close to a situation it was in during the Troubles, does the EU have an obligation to step in and ensure the rights of what will be a massive population of it's citizens?

I'd say the EU would be extremely unlikely to pull quite so directly from Putin's "how to invade your neighbours" handbook!

I'd imagine we'd have a situation where the EU would negotiate with the UK regarding rights for EU citizens living in the UK, and would make such conditions a key element of any future trade deal.

Additionally, I can see the EU legislating to give non-resident EU citizens certain rights equivalent to EU resident citizens

Seanachai

The shelves in one of the chemists and the shop across the road in my neighbourhood were half bare last night. The paranoid part of me is thinking this is linked to Brexit.

LeinsterDub

Seanachai wrote: »

The shelves in one of the chemists and the shop across the road in my neighbourhood were half bare last night. The paranoid part of me is thinking this is linked to Brexit.

Got an email from my insurance company to apply for a green card if I'm driving in the UK. Which I am.