Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

The BBC are reporting that there might not be a MV3 next week if May doesn't believe it will pass:

Theresa May has told MPs there might not be a third vote on her Brexit deal next week if there is insufficient support for it to pass.

If it does not pass, the EU has set a deadline of 12 April for the UK to propose a new plan.

Meanwhile, supporters of another EU referendum will march through central London later.

Labour's Tom Watson will speak at the event, pledging to back May's deal if she agrees to hold a referendum on it.

Surely this must mean a second referendum if either Watson can back up his words or May doesn't hold the vote.

Either way, it looks like it's heading to the wire.

Donald Trump

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Have you been paying any attention at all to the UK government over the last two years? They want to leave and they want to keep all the good parts of the EU treaties.
They can pick one. Trouble is they haven't been able to agree amongst themselves. So they're paralysed. And they slightly over estimated the importance of the UK to the rest of the EU so they got a crappy deal.

They can leave tomorrow if they want. Trouble is they're trying to minimise the damage to the economy while the hard Brexiters won't be affected and will probably profit from a hard Brexit.

The leave promoters promised itd be the easiest deal in history. They've been shown to be either liers or incompetent or both.

Brexit backers made hundreds of millions on the night of the vote shorting GBP. Especially with Farage conceding defeat after being told poll results and before the official result. (Which he admitted but brushed it off as losing confidence)


Rees Mogg has billions of capital which he invests in emerging markets. the same emerging markets which would be free to flood the UK with cheap/inferior goods off the back of exploited labour should his plans/vision for free-trade no tariff actually materialize

recedite

Enzokk wrote: »

Hindsight is 20/20 off course, but there was no way that the UK could leave the EU without a pre-determined outcome of single market membership and customs union or accepting that Northern Ireland will be separated from the rest of the UK. Now the problem is these 2 options will not be enough for those that want to leave the EU and thus we find ourselves where we find ourselves.

It is not that democracy has failed, it is that those that tried to use democracy failed at doing it properly. They failed to take into account the history of Northern Ireland and the GFA and the impact the EU has had with this and arrogantly thought it would not be a problem.

Except that's just not true. The UK and NI could leave, and with some mutual goodwill and co-operation a soft border with RoI could have been arranged.


But the Coveney/Varadkar insistence on a totally frictionless border with NI is of course incompatible with Brexit.

By insisting on that "backstop" they are likely to cause a hard border instead, after Brexit. Preparations for the hard border are being drawn up at this very moment in Brussels.


The GFA has no bearing at all on Brexit, as has already been proved in a Belfast court. But if you want to tell me what exactly in the GFA stipulates that NI must remain in the EU or its customs union, I'm all ears.

Enzokk

Gringo180 wrote: »

Surely we can come to an agreement with the Brits over the north, but no the pro E.U cronies we have in power would rather jeopardise peace with our neighbours for what they want, in what will be a failed superstate of European nations? Its complete and utter madness. As the years go by our sovereignty is slowly but surely being eroded away.

Well the problem is we owe a lot of our own prosperity not to the UK but our membership of the EU. We have to choose either the EU or the UK if the UK wants to diverge from the EU. So we can choose to come to a agreement with the UK and cut ourselves off from the EU, which all projections show, I believe, will be worse for us than the UK leaving the EU with no-deal.

So our choice will be do we stay with the EU or the UK when the EU will be a better choice economically. What would your choice be?

robindch

recedite wrote: »

But the Coveney/Varadkar insistence on a totally frictionless border with NI is of course incompatible with Brexit.

It is, however, compatible with the Good Friday Agreement which ended violence in Northern Ireland. While it's probably of little consequence to ardent disaster capitalists, signatories to international agreements - particularly ones which end violence - are expected to stick to what they have agreed.

recedite wrote: »

By insisting on that "backstop" they are likely to cause a hard border instead, after Brexit. Preparations for the hard border are being drawn up at this very moment in Brussels.

UKGov was the institution which proposed, negotiated and accepted, the backstop in the first place - it's hardly IRGov's problem if UKGov decides to go back on their commitment.

Enzokk

recedite wrote: »

Except that's just not true. The UK and NI could leave, and with some mutual goodwill and co-operation a soft border with RoI could have been arranged.


But the Coveney/Varadkar insistence on a totally frictionless border with NI is of course incompatible with Brexit.

By insisting on that "backstop" they are likely to cause a hard border instead, after Brexit. Preparations for the hard border are being drawn up at this very moment in Brussels.


The GFA has no bearing at all on Brexit, as has already been proved in a Belfast court. But if you want to tell me what exactly in the GFA stipulates that NI must remain in the EU or its customs union, I'm all ears.

After almost 3 years and a lot more intelligent people looking at the GFA and EU membership implications the fact that the UK hasn't just walked away is not a sign to you that you are wrong? The continued insistence from May on keeping the border open and frictionless is because she is stupid and being bullied?

Just stop and think about that, think about what sort of conspiracy it should be from all sides to make this happen. It would take cooperation from Ireland and the UK and the EU and the US all to agree to something that is so obviously not true.

Or, while the GFA does not write in black and white that a border has to be open for it to work, it was written at a time when there was no customs or regulation checks between the two countries and thus you have to take that as the default for the agreement to continue.

recedite

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/border-to-be-discussed-between-ireland-and-eu-as-brexit-pressure-intensifies-1.3835698

Plans on how to deal with the Irish Border issue in the event of a no-deal Brexit are to be discussed urgently between the European Commission and Irish Government officials.
This comes after EU leaders at Friday’s European summit raised the need to protect the single market if the UK crashes out of the union without a deal. Several senior EU and Irish sources said there was a desire that the issue be prioritised immediately.
Senior Irish Government sources acknowledged preparations now needed to be intensified, but stressed EU leaders were also committed to keeping an open border in Ireland and protecting the Belfast Agreement.

Notice how the language is changing. An "open border" is not the same as the "frictionless border" specified in the backstop.
"Open" can mean anything. It can mean cameras, and pre-clearance and checks on lorries carrying goods. Just like at the Norwegian and Swiss borders with the EU.
In fact, just the sort of thing that the UK was suggesting all along, but which was roundly dismissed as unacceptable by Varadkar and Coveney.
And by rejecting those ideas, they EU side made the WA unacceptable and unworkable to the UK parliament.

fash

recedite wrote: »

Except that's just not true. The UK and NI could leave, and with some mutual goodwill and co-operation a soft border with RoI could have been arranged.


But the Coveney/Varadkar insistence on a totally frictionless border with NI is of course incompatible with Brexit.

By insisting on that "backstop" they are likely to cause a hard border instead, after Brexit. Preparations for the hard border are being drawn up at this very moment in Brussels.


The GFA has no bearing at all on Brexit, as has already been proved in a Belfast court. But if you want to tell me what exactly in the GFA stipulates that NI must remain in the EU or its customs union, I'm all ears.

Let us not forget that the Brexiters/leave campaign promised that there would be NO change to the border and no "soft" border - none. Furthermore, the UK government continues to insist that there will be none. Surely we should trust them at their word? Surely you are not saying they would lie?

Secondly, the people of NI want to be in the single market and want the back stop - against the will of people, that is being blocked by the DUP and ERG. Surely the Will of the People ™ must be not be betrayed ?

Donald Trump

recedite wrote: »

Except that's just not true. The UK and NI could leave, and with some mutual goodwill and co-operation a soft border with RoI could have been arranged.


But the Coveney/Varadkar insistence on a totally frictionless border with NI is of course incompatible with Brexit.

By insisting on that "backstop" they are likely to cause a hard border instead, after Brexit. Preparations for the hard border are being drawn up at this very moment in Brussels.


The GFA has no bearing at all on Brexit, as has already been proved in a Belfast court. But if you want to tell me what exactly in the GFA stipulates that NI must remain in the EU or its customs union, I'm all ears.

You do know that the UK agreed to the "backstop" a long time ago. You know that? It's not something that was unilaterally demanded by "Coveney/Varadkar"


Your Belfast court case is irrelevant. Basically that said that that court had no power to intervene to prevent a political decision. No more than that. Do you not understand that?



There is no written constitution in the UK. Think of the Parliament as having "executive power". All the court said was that it did not have the authority to prevent that.


In the US, there is an international trade agreement between Canada/US/Mexico. It is called NAFTA. Trump said he will tear this up. You know that he has the power to do this? Unless the US supreme court can find something that is against their written constitution, they cannot impinge on his authority to do so.


Using your logic, if NAFTA was torn up and not replaced, and someone took a case to try to prevent it on the basis that there was an agreement signed to allow free trade, but the court said that they could not arbitrarily impinge upon executive power, you would infer that there is nothing in NAFTA to allow free trade.

fash

recedite wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/border-to-be-discussed-between-ireland-and-eu-as-brexit-pressure-intensifies-1.3835698
Notice how the language is changing. An "open border" is not the same as the "frictionless border" specified in the backstop.
"Open" can mean anything. It can mean cameras, and pre-clearance and checks on lorries carrying goods. Just like at the Norwegian and Swiss borders with the EU.
In fact, just the sort of thing that the UK was suggesting all along, but which was roundly dismissed as unacceptable by Varadkar and Coveney.
And by rejecting those ideas, they EU side made the WA unacceptable and unworkable to the UK parliament.

The Norwegian and Swiss borders involve significant traffic jams (I know as I've been stuck in some) - and a tiny fraction of the number of crossings that NI/Ireland has.
The Swiss border in fact even has some German exclaves which are subject to Swiss customs jurisdiction (what! Outrageous! German exclaves say no! Etc.).

Joe_ Public

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/no-deal-brexit-off-table-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I know there are literally 100s of speculative opinion pieces you could link but Freedland has been one of the automatic go-to reporters for me during this whole process and i find this a bracing piece. Was news to me that only May can sign the document appealing for a further extension beyond April 12. That seems worrying on a number of levels.

Donald Trump

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/no-deal-brexit-off-table-theresa-may?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I know there are literally 100s of speculative opinion pieces you could link but Freedland has been one of the automatic go-to reporters for me during this whole process and i find this a bracing piece. Was news to me that only May can sign the document appealing for a further extension beyond April 12. That seems worrying on a number of levels.

I asked the same question a few pages back. A few people on here responded to say that the Parliament could sign these things. So I don't know

peasant

Leaving the EU without a deal apparently is illegal as it contravenes the UK's own withdrawal act, unless the parliament expressly legislates for it (which it hasn't and proabably won't)

Seemingly the no-deal default isn't the default after all.

Mind blown

I can't even attempt to explain the legalese details, but the withdrawal act specifically makes provisions for the Good Friday agreement and no hard border...which makes it illegal to leave without a deal which would result in such a border.

Better explanation in this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEk9sDbK8D0

The relevant bit of the withdrawal act here:

Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements

(1)In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
(a)act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and
(b)have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

(2)Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a)diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.

quoted from here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted

recedite

robindch wrote: »

UKGov was the institution which proposed, negotiated and accepted, the backstop in the first place - it's hardly IRGov's problem if UKGov decides to go back on their commitment.

Not so. Originally there was a mutual aspiration between the UK and RoI to keep the border "open" (which still exists)
It developed into an Irish threat to veto any Withdrawal Agreement, which threat Barnier encouraged. May's weak response was to incorporate the Irish demands into the agreement as "The Irish Protocol".
But as we know, she has been unable to persuade the UK parliament to accept her deal. Too many of them understood that it would mean leaving NI behind after Brexit, still under the control of EU customs and border arrangements. The recent Strasbourg instrument introduced the possibility that this control might be time limited, but "might" proved to be a bit too weasely.

Joe_ Public

Donald Trump wrote: »

I asked the same question a few pages back. A few people on here responded to say that the Parliament could sign these things. So I don't know

I’m assuming nothing anymore. Presumably the mechanism to extend the leave date beyond next Friday is routine, but who can say for definite some other legal spanner won’t be thrown in the works? A case of watch this space seems to be the state of play.

fash

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the problem is we owe a lot of our own prosperity not to the UK but our membership of the EU. We have to choose either the EU or the UK if the UK wants to diverge from the EU. So we can choose to come to a agreement with the UK and cut ourselves off from the EU, which all projections show, I believe, will be worse for us than the UK leaving the EU with no-deal.

So our choice will be do we stay with the EU or the UK when the EU will be a better choice economically. What would your choice be?

It goes further than that - the treatment of Ireland by the UK and the EU during this process should be considered - the UK has continued to threaten to economically cripple and starve Ireland into submission and has used every resource at its disposal to have the EU and other European countries throw Ireland under a bus. Not only that but they entirely expected that to work and have been astonished to find that it did not.

The EU and European countries meanwhile have made certain that Ireland, its interests and peace on the island remain central to this process.

And after all that - we should do the bidding of the UK!!?
Have you learnt nothing from the last 900 years of history?

Edit: that last sentence was not for Enzokk - but rather at the person he was responding to.

recedite

Donald Trump wrote: »

You do know that the UK agreed to the "backstop" a long time ago. You know that? It's not something that was unilaterally demanded by "Coveney/Varadkar"

Nope. May allowed it into the text of her proposed deal, which proved to be a tactical mistake, because it meant she could not get her deal past the parliament.
If and when the UK parliament votes to accept her deal, then you can say "the UK has agreed to the backstop". Providing it is still in the deal at the time.


Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.
The EU side would immediately modify the WA, and the UK would then vote for it. The end result would be a totally frictionless border for the next 2 years of transition period, and a very soft border after that (because free trade agreement)
However that would require Varadkar and Coveney doing a U-turn, and admitting they were wrong all along. Its a political log jam.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Your Belfast court case is irrelevant. Basically that said that that court had no power to intervene to prevent a political decision. No more than that. Do you not understand that?

You're just wrong. I linked to the case and explained it to you earlier, but you refuse to understand.
As they say, "You can lead a horse to water..."

Patser

This is just getting ridiculous.

Petition to revoke is now most signed petition even in UK, above 4 million and still climbing.

Potentially largest protest March in UK history assembling in London.

Weakest PM in UK history on her last legs and in verge of being ousted.

And leader of Opposition, who's party supports the revokation of article 50, decides this is a good time to launch a local election campaign 100 miles away - instead of being front and centre of an alternative

https://www.heart.co.uk/northlancs/news/local/corbyn-in-morecambe-for-campaign-launch/

It really is pathetic, almost Oscar Wildeish 'To have one poor leader is unfortunate, to have 2 smacks of carelessness'. And still the Lib Dems or TIG or any viable 3rd option can't gain ground.

FPTP is terrible.

recedite

fash wrote: »

The EU and European countries meanwhile have made certain that Ireland, its interests and peace on the island remain central to this process.

That remains to be seen.

They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

Enzokk

peasant wrote: »

Leaving the EU without a deal apparently is illegal as it contravenes the UK's own withdrawal act, unless the parliament expressly legislates for it (which it hasn't and proabably won't)

Seemingly the no-deal default isn't the default after all.

Mind blown

I can't even attempt to explain the legalese details, but the withdrawal act specifically makes provisions for the Good Friday agreement and no hard border...which makes it illegal to leave without a deal which would result in such a border.

Better explanation in this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEk9sDbK8D0

The relevant bit of the withdrawal act here:



quoted from here:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted

My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements that will ensure that there is no border between Ireland and NI. At least that is still my feeling on it if it does come down to no-deal. The big loser will be the DUP, they will be "cut-off" from the mainland and there will be a new election soon after and in all likelihood they will lose their influence they have at the moment.

recedite

Patser wrote: »

This is just getting ridiculous.

Petition to revoke is now most signed petition even in UK, above 4 million and still climbing.

Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

recedite

Enzokk wrote: »

My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements that will ensure that there is no border between Ireland and NI. At least that is still my feeling on it if it does come down to no-deal. The big loser will be the DUP, they will be "cut-off" from the mainland and there will be a new election soon after and in all likelihood they will lose their influence they have at the moment.

Would these soft border "arrangements" be any different to those proposed by the UK for last few years? (Technology, pre-clearance etc..)


In fact the DUP would not be cut off by a soft border, and their sovereignty would be unaffected; that is the whole point.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

Nope. May allowed it into the text of her proposed deal, which proved to be a tactical mistake, because it meant she could not get her deal past the parliament.

Britain negotiated the UK wide backstop.

They didn't let it in. They demanded it.

The NI only backstop might have gotten past parliament but it couldn't get past the DUP. This is why May had to go back and try and get the backstop changed.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

I disagree. 14 million woukd be enough as that exceeds the ref vote in favour of Brexit.

fash

recedite wrote: »

That remains to be seen.

They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

If the UK fails to come up with a realistic legal means of ensuring no hard border and leaves- then the fault will remain with the UK. If I put a gun on your hand, force the gun into your mouth and force you to pull the trigger- that doesn't mean you commit suicide - even if it was your finger that pulled the trigger.
And a continuing no deal until the UK (or whatever remains of it) accepts that - especially one where Ireland can sufficiently influence the US to ensure that there is no US-UK FTA without an NI backstop is by far Ireland's second best option.

Calina

recedite wrote: »

That remains to be seen.

They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

They have not. But it is clear that leaving the EU means you lose the advantages linked with membership. Why this has to be pointed out I do not know.

Hurrache

recedite wrote: »

Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.

Because the UK has been so good at keeping it's word up until now. In fact drop all agreements, let's just spit and shake on it, that'll sort it.

CelticRambler

recedite wrote: »

Which brings us to the oft overlooked fact that the Irish govt. could withdraw its insistence on the backstop tomorrow, and settle for a soft border instead.
The EU side would immediately modify the WA, and the UK would then vote for it. The end result would be a totally frictionless border for the next 2 years of transition period, and a very soft border after that (because free trade agreement)

Give us an example of a "very soft border" somewhere that'll work between NI and the RoI, bearing in mind that so far, you've cited examples of two hard borders between the EU and two countries that have free movement of people (specifically excluded by the UK).

Oh, and again, give us an example of a "very soft border" that doesn't rely on new, targettable hard infrastructure, specifically prohibed by the UK's leglistation.

peasant

Enzokk wrote: »

My wording is going to be clumsy here. The UK can leave without a deal but there will be some arrangements ...

But that would mean that the UK parliament would have to specifically legislate for this no-deal arrangement, which

a) they haven't yet and most likely won't
b) means that the no-deal "default" isn't the default and illegal

Hurrache

recedite wrote: »

That remains to be seen.

They have certainly shown that they will make things hard for any country that tries to leave.
Whether Irish interests are paramount is another thing. We will have to wait and see.

How on earth has it not got through to you that the UK's OWN red lines have made it difficult for them. The UK could have left at any point after article 50.