Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You are part of the EU. You can find yourself with legal obligations placed upon you. Some of us have seen that the EEC and later the EU has developed and is continuing to develop in different ways to what we want and have decided that it is not the place for us.

So England Scotland Wales don't have legal obligations to the UK? Member states of the UN, Nato, WTO etc don't have 'legal obligations?

Tell me how

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

There is a difference between disagreeing with being invaded and suppressed and actively choosing to form partnerships.

How is it so many proponents of 'sovereignty' do not get this?

Topgear on Dave

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

Different history. Different culture.

We know we are a small nation. We know our power is limited.

We have never had a large military and have no history of great empire.

There are no memories of "how we won the war" to nostalgically appeal to.

prawnsambo

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a difference between disagreeing with being invaded and suppressed and actively choosing to form partnerships.

How is it so many proponents of 'sovereignty' do not get this?

Because it's not about sovereignty. It's about not being the sole rule maker and having to accept other points of view.

ThePanjandrum

Christy42 wrote: »

What do you want at this point. If there is a no deal we either have a complete destruction of all our industries or we have a border (or at least as soon as the UK deviates from the EU in terms of tariffs etc.). We might be able to sneak by for a bit but other countries (and I mean around the world) won't be happy with is flaunting WTO rules we are signed up for.

The only part of the WA the UK is currently arguing against is the soft border. If they want a hard border we can't stop them.

New ideas but right now the EU has been backing us. The backstop is there for us. Otherwise the EU could have simply cut us out of the single market and got on with the deal.

New ideas or stop with the meaningless phrases. What would you do. I want serious specifics here, not just "do a deal for no border".

The UK is not arguing against a soft border, the UK is arguing against a backstop arrangement that remains until the EU decides that it is no longer required.

prawnsambo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The UK is not arguing against a soft border, the UK is arguing against a backstop arrangement that remains until the EU decides that it is no longer required.

We'll decide that thanks. Like we did at the start when we mentioned a certain agreement that had to be observed.

ThePanjandrum

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

Was that your genuine take on what he meant, or a fiction invented to antagonise?

It's clear he's referring to the overall inability of the UK to realise that it itself is the EU, not just far away Brussels. Ireland understands that quite well, even though we are a comparatively tiny cog in the wheel compared to the UK, which has somehow allowed something it hates, and doesn't even understand, to have come about under its heavy influence.

It's arguable that the UK never really shaped the EU outside of asking for opt-outs simply because it never felt a part of it. Like that uncle who visits a lot and eats your food and drinks your beer, but doesn't interfere with the family.

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The UK is not arguing against a soft border, the UK is arguing against a backstop arrangement that remains until the EU decides that it is no longer required.

It will either be required or not required. There isn't a middle ground in this and no decision needs to be made. If there is a trade agreement then it is not required, if there isn't a TA it comes into play.

Bit cynical

lawred2 wrote: »

What's the alternative?

It's not the EU that can't agree a common position.

Do you want the EU to handhold HMG and the HoC in some way? So much for soverignty.

What is it that you would like to see the EU doing exactly?

If they crash out without a deal then a lot of our current strategy aimed at preventing a hard border will have failed since a hard border will have to be put in place at that point.

There is still hope that they will come back after a few months on their knees begging for a deal. However there is also the possibility they will not. I think the key period will be the first six months of no deal. After six months, the probability of the UK coming back diminishes over time as UK citizens adapt to the new circumstances.

It will probably be hard for the current Government to back down over the backstop from a political perspective, so what will happen is that informal arrangements will be made which will soften the impact of the border through cooperation between the two countries and information sharing while staying within the letter of EU regulations. The demand for the backstop will never be officially abandoned but will quietly be dropped as the years go by.

ThePanjandrum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So England Scotland Wales don't have legal obligations to the UK? Member states of the UN, Nato, WTO etc don't have 'legal obligations?

England, Scotland and Wales have obligations to the UK because they are all part of one country. Neither Ireland nor the UK is part of a country called the EU because this does not (yet) exist. However, the laws of both countries are subject to the supremacy of EU law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

If they crash out without a deal then a lot of our current strategy aimed at preventing a hard border will have failed since a hard border will have to be put in place at that point.

There is still hope that they will come back after a few months on their knees begging for a deal. However there is also the possibility they will not. I think the key period will be the first six months of no deal. After six months, the probability of the UK coming back diminishes over time as UK citizens adapt to the new circumstances.

It will probably be hard for the current Government to back down over the backstop from a political perspective, so what will happen is that informal arrangements will be made which will soften the impact of the border through cooperation between the two countries and information sharing while staying within the letter of EU regulations. The demand for the backstop will never be officially abandoned but will quietly be dropped as the years go by.

By TM's own admission they will 'have to agree' not just try to get a deal of some kind after a crash out. Wasn't that part of Sammy Wilson new wheeze (since silent on it) just a week or two ago. That they could negotiate what they wanted after?

Capt'n Midnight

Lemming wrote: »

the following quoted below paragraphs chimed with what a family member within the Irish civil service, working with British counterparts among others, said to me two years ago: that there were a lot of very capable people in the British civil service but completely hamstrung by the inept incompetence of their political masters and that a hard brexit was extremely likely.

Our civil service was inherited from the UK. It's not that long ago that some still used to get a day off for the 'King's Birthday' and 'Empire Day'. And I'd imagine that Yes Minister is still useful as a training tool. And there's the whole language thing, so I'd imagine out of the whole EU we'd be the most in tuned with each other.

A view the govt shares
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coveney-refuses-to-apologise-for-stubborn-brexit-talks-strategy-1.3515013

The Tánaiste praised British civil servants as arguably the best in the world and spoke of the importance of close relations between senior Irish and British officials in the negotiations.

"Lions led by donkeys" comes to mind.

FrancieBrady

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

England, Scotland and Wales have obligations to the UK because they are all part of one country. Neither Ireland nor the UK is part of a country called the EU because this does not (yet) exist. However, the laws of both countries are subject to the supremacy of EU law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

They are all part of 'arrangements' or 'Unions' with obligations and legal restraints that are agreed among the members.

Bit cynical

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By TM's own admission they will 'have to agree' not just try to get a deal of some kind after a crash out. Wasn't that part of Sammy Wilson new wheeze (since silent on it) just a week or two ago. That they could negotiate what they wanted after?

Regardless of what TM says, there is no guarantee that the UK will agree to a backstop after a crash out exit though of course we hope that there will be such an agreement.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

England, Scotland and Wales have obligations to the UK because they are all part of one country. Neither Ireland nor the UK is part of a country called the EU because this does not (yet) exist. However, the laws of both countries are subject to the supremacy of EU law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

However, the laws of all countries are subject to the supremacy of Westminster law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

Fyp

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

If they crash out without a deal then a lot of our current strategy aimed at preventing a hard border will have failed since a hard border will have to be put in place at that point.

There is still hope that they will come back after a few months on their knees begging for a deal. However there is also the possibility they will not. I think the key period will be the first six months of no deal. After six months, the probability of the UK coming back diminishes over time as UK citizens adapt to the new circumstances.

It will probably be hard for the current Government to back down over the backstop from a political perspective, so what will happen is that informal arrangements will be made which will soften the impact of the border through cooperation between the two countries and information sharing while staying within the letter of EU regulations. The demand for the backstop will never be officially abandoned but will quietly be dropped as the years go by.

The chances of them not eventually signing a deal are incredibly remote. I would put the chance of them not signing within five years after a crash out at say 5%, and that's generous.

It's largely inconceivable that a new government would pursue a likely disadvantageous deal with the US resulting in a permanent hard border, breaking of the GFA, and a complete removal of the possibility of a comprehensive EU free trade deal.

Can you imagine parliament in the run up to signing that with the US? It would be insanity and pretty much everyone underestimates how big it would be. Brexit is leave, any non-EU deal is leave forever.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

Regardless of what TM says, there is no guarantee that the UK will agree to a backstop after a crash out exit though of course we hope that there will be such an agreement.

No there isn't a guarantee. And they won't get the deal THEY want. Just the same as they won't this side of a crash out. Difference will be that they will be in a much weaker position after a crash out. It's called a 'crash' out for a reason.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Regardless of what TM says, there is no guarantee that the UK will agree to a backstop after a crash out exit though of course we hope that there will be such an agreement.

Absolutely none. But that means no deal of any kind.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Absolutely none. But that means no deal of any kind.

For us as well as them.

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

For us as well as them.

We will take a hit, but as a full member of the EU, we can recover. The UK and northern Ireland will be firefighting for years before any recovery can begin. They have taken a fair hit already.

Capt'n Midnight

woohoo!!! wrote: »

The HoC, as is their right, refused to ratify the agreement made by the executive. Normally the process of ratification is a mere formality.

Twice, Ireland via referendum failed to ratify EU agrrements made by the Executive. Changes were made by the consent of the other EU countries and then were ratified via referendum.

FFS


Clarification notes to the original treaty were added separately.

But no changes were made to the treaties. NONE.

May has received clarifications on the WA and there is no expectation that the deal she signed off on will be changed.

woohoo!!!

I see Chris Grayling, transport Secretary, has been banned from Calais. First Spain and now France. And May is going to Brussels tomorrow looking for concessions...

prawnsambo

All the internal squabbling in Westminster is being carried on in the full light of the media. And they seem oblivious to this. The constant lies, politicking, insult slinging, backtracking and saying different things to different people hasn't gone unnoticed around the world. The one loud message that everyone is hearing is that the UK can't be trusted. It's now becoming a concern on the other side of the Atlantic.

Midlife

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

England, Scotland and Wales have obligations to the UK because they are all part of one country. Neither Ireland nor the UK is part of a country called the EU because this does not (yet) exist. However, the laws of both countries are subject to the supremacy of EU law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

Following your logic, should Cork not exit Ireland? The by-laws of Cork are subject to the supremacy of Irish law.

Then West-Cork should secede from Cork and so on.

I mean why stop at nations. Either collective decision and democracy is a good or a bad thing.

Can you advise why stopping at arbitrary enough national borders drawn up a century ago would make it any better or worse?

When it comes to being subject to a law you don't agree with, what difference does it make if you're talking about a country or community?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

For us as well as them.

Trade wise, the UK is in a very weak position. It is a net importer of food and other goods. As a nation, it can't survive on its own. That's the stark reality. We have 26 other countries that we can go to for imports and exports. So it's not even close to the same for us as well as them.

View

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

You are part of the EU. You can find yourself with legal obligations placed upon you. Some of us have seen that the EEC and later the EU has developed and is continuing to develop in different ways to what we want and have decided that it is not the place for us.

The EU has developed in the manner that it has because each and every one of the member states - including the U.K. - agreed that it would develop in that fashion.

Your problem isn’t with the EU but rather with your own Parliament for having exercised the UK’s own sovereignty to approve EU Treaty changes that you don’t like. Fundamentally you believe that your personal opinions should override your own Parliament’s sovereignty.

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

Trade wise, the UK is in a very weak position. It is a net importer of food and other goods. As a nation, it can't survive on its own. That's the stark reality. We have 26 other countries that we can go to for imports and exports. So it's not even close to the same for us as well as them.

I am prepared to support Ireland's strategy with respect to the backstop. What we have to accept though is that it is a strategy that may fail and, if it does, we can't blame the UK or other countries. It fails, imo, if it goes on year after year with no agreement, bearing in mind that we have the hard border during that time, the thing that we are supposedly against. Therefore, if it fails, I support the Government abandoning the strategy in those circumstances.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I am prepared to support Ireland's strategy with respect to the backstop. What we have to accept though is that it is a strategy that may fail and, if it does, we can't blame the UK or other countries. It fails, imo, if it goes on year after year with no agreement, bearing in mind that we have the hard border during that time, the thing that we are supposedly against. Therefore, if it fails, I support the Government abandoning the strategy in those circumstances.

You still don't seem to appreciate that it takes two to tango. So far the UK has played fast and loose with the GFA and imo has tried to use it as a hostage in a FTA negotiation. That bluff was called and the GFA put front and centre, to which they agreed so that they could get on with the trade talks. Which they didn't seem to realise, weren't binding. And now that they have realised their folly, they are trying to go back to the beginning again. I have no faith in them to be anything other than duplicitous at this stage. So until it's nailed down and immovable, then we can talk. Any bending and we're done.

Bit cynical

Bit cynical wrote: »

I am prepared to support Ireland's strategy with respect to the backstop. What we have to accept though is that it is a strategy that may fail and, if it does, we can't blame the UK or other countries. It fails, imo, if it goes on year after year with no agreement, bearing in mind that we have the hard border during that time, the thing that we are supposedly against. Therefore, if it fails, I support the Government abandoning the strategy in those circumstances.

Wait, what?

The Government should turn the temporary hard border into a permanent one? Or what else could abandoning the strategy do?

FrancieBrady

Bit cynical wrote: »

I am prepared to support Ireland's strategy with respect to the backstop. What we have to accept though is that it is a strategy that may fail and, if it does, we can't blame the UK or other countries. It fails, imo, if it goes on year after year with no agreement, bearing in mind that we have the hard border during that time, the thing that we are supposedly against. Therefore, if it fails, I support the Government abandoning the strategy in those circumstances.

We were constitutionally opposed to it since partition right up to the GFA. If the GFA doesn't prevent one, we have only one solution staring us in the face.