Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Patser

recedite wrote: »

Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

Interesting concept - all ideas must be unanimous, including children and infants of all ages - for said idea to be considered. Simply breaking records is not enough to stir even the attention of Countrys Leadership or indeed want to be Leader, absolutely. every. single. person in that country must be onside.


Edit: just to add, maybe you're on to something as I can't find any mention of said march on BBC website today

Edit edit : and it just popped up now as headline

recedite

CelticRambler wrote: »

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.

So you dismiss Norway and Switzerland because they have "free movement of people". Are you not aware that Ireland and UK have always had free movement of people, a freedom going right back to the beginning of time?
Codified in modern times as the CTA.


Your youtube guy who claims any kind of physical border controls are specifically prohibited by UK legislation is wrong. It says

Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which...

That is not the same as "prohibiting" something.

Enzokk

recedite wrote: »

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.

Nope, they would be the backstop that was initially proposed, with checks on the ports and none between NI and Ireland. That would effectively mean Northern Ireland is still in the EU. The UK has committed to not putting any new infrastructure on the border that was not there at the time of the referendum and the only way to ensure that is to not change the arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland as they are currently.

peasant wrote: »

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

I don't know what would need to happen. Did the UK parliament have a vote on the GFA and did they legislate for that? I don't know if they did as I cannot find anything, if the government of the day signed the agreement on behalf of the UK surely this could happen again?

recedite

Patser wrote: »

Interesting concept - all ideas must be unanimous, including children and infants of all ages .

Stop being facetious. I'm pointing out that 4 million out of 66 million is not a significant amount.

20silkcut

https://youtu.be/lEk9sDbK8D0


This link is worth a look it explains that no deal basically can’t happen.

No deal has to be legislated in parliament. (Good luck with that)
The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.
If it’s not legislated in parliament then that’s against their wishes

Donald Trump

recedite wrote: »

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..."

No. You are just being silly now. I will make one more attempt. After that, there is no point.



Answer me this. Lets consider a hypothetical situation. If the UK had signed an agreement with Ireland, lets say we call it the "Great Thursday agreement" which said that there would be All-island cooperation and explicitly no borders, would that have given a court in Belfast the authority to prevent the UK Parliament from withdrawing from the EU?


You know, like a hypothetical case if the UK had signed a common aviation agreement to regulate and allow air traffic between EU and some non-EU countries. I mean if they had signed an agreement, it would have prevented Brexit? No? Therefore no such agreement was signed? Am I doing it right?



Or, say, a hypothetical scenario where the UK had signed up to be part of a greater union? Maybe with some other countries in Europe. Obviously if they had signed such an agreement, it would mean that a little court in Belfast could prevent the British Parliament from exercising their prerogative powers? So obviously, that never happened did it?


Do you get it yet? The UK Parliament has sovereign right to withdraw from whatever they want. simple as that. Court case said it could not stop them. Simple as that. You are free to take from that that there was no GFA. That can be your "belief" and you can believe it to be true if you want. #hannonirishhistory

Enzokk

recedite wrote: »

So you dismiss Norway and Switzerland because they have "free movement of people". Are you not aware that Ireland and UK have always had free movement of people, a freedom going right back to the beginning of time?
Codified in modern times as the CTA.

He is dismissing it because they have free movement of people and there is still checks that are being carried out so the border is not soft. Having free movement is not the same as a soft border.

recedite wrote: »

Your youtube guy who claims any kind of physical border controls are specifically prohibited by UK legislation is wrong. It saysThat is not the same as "prohibiting" something.

It says they are not allowed to authorise new regulations that create new border arrangements. So I read it as they cannot create a deal that makes this happen and actually not that it cannot happen. But this is the first time I see it and I am sure it has been scrutinized by legal eagles before who has looked at it in Ireland, the EU and the UK.

recedite

Enzokk wrote: »

Nope, they would be the backstop that was initially proposed, with checks on the ports and none between NI and Ireland. That would effectively mean Northern Ireland is still in the EU. The UK has committed to not putting any new infrastructure on the border that was not there at the time of the referendum and the only way to ensure that is to not change the arrangements between Northern Ireland and Ireland as they are currently.

If the UK and NI leaves without a deal, how is the EU going to exert this level of control over a part of the UK and NI, against the will of its people?


The only commitment made to the backstop by T. May was within her proposed deal, which as we know was rejected by parliament.

Donald Trump

20silkcut wrote: »

The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.

Haven't looked at your link but the EU is not kicking out the UK.


UK served notice to withdraw and hasn't revoked that notice.

Donald Trump

recedite wrote: »

The only commitment made to the backstop by T. May was within her proposed deal, which as we know was rejected by parliament.

No it was signed.


Hence after the U-turn - "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".


Can the EU force the UK to honour it? No. That doesn't mean they have to continue on as if nothing happened.


If you give your mate 20 quid down the pub and he doesn't pay you back, is there anything you can do about it? No. But you might remember it the next time he rings you up and says "hey, will you give me a hand next week with this thing" .

Patser

recedite wrote: »

Stop being facetious. I'm pointing out that 4 million out of 66 million is not a significant amount.

And I was pointing out that a record breaking petition (and possibly march) for an alternative should be mana from heaven from the Man that wants to be the alternative to the PM, not attendance at a local Party launch in a small seaside town hundreds of miles away.

4 million signatures (and rising) is not inconsequential in a time when there are few clearly accepted alternatives

Enzokk

20silkcut wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lEk9sDbK8D0


This link is worth a look it explains that no deal basically can’t happen.

No deal has to be legislated in parliament. (Good luck with that)
The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.
If it’s not legislated in parliament then that’s against their wishes

The UK has given their indication that they want to leave the EU with the article 50 letter. That is the UK's decision and they are not being kicked out of the EU against their wishes, they started the process.

As for legislating for no-deal, that is up to the UK. If after 12 April they leave without a deal is has nothing to do with the EU on whether there is legislation in the UK keeping them in the EU. That is the same as the current change in date, the EU has agreed to it but the UK has not so their leave date is still 29th March and if they don't change it they are legally out of the EU as that is what the Withdrawal Act has as its date.

So I assume they mean it is illegal for UK politicians in UK law but as long as they have legally followed the procedure as set out in the EU treaties to leave the EU will consider them to have left. The only way to get back into the EU again after the 12th April (if they get the SI in place) would be to reapply for membership.

recedite wrote: »

If the UK and NI leaves without a deal, how is the EU going to exert this level of control over a part of the UK and NI, against the will of its people?


The only commitment made to the backstop by T. May was within her proposed deal, which as we know was rejected by parliament.

NI voted to remain so I don't see that argument holding any water. As for the rest, to be honest no-one has an idea what will happen if her deal doesn't pass. I only have hopes on what will happen in the case of no-deal and that is a agreement between the EU and UK to not throw the GFA in the fire. This can only mean one thing and it is a Irish Sea border.

recedite

Enzokk wrote: »

He is dismissing it because they have free movement of people and there is still checks that are being carried out so the border is not soft. Having free movement is not the same as a soft border.

You're conflating a lot of different ideas here. Those borders are "soft" IMO. The border between South Korea and NK is "hard".
Its true, a lot of these definitions are open to interpretation.


But be wary when you see EU reassurance of a future "open border" protecting the single market, because it can mean anything.


As I pointed out, Irish citizens will still have full freedom of movement across the border, and eastwards across to Britain, because the UK has no intention of revoking the CTA. That would apply even if there were trade tariffs and lorries were being checked. So exactly the same as the situation with Norway and Switzerland.

If you buy Norwegian salmon in your supermarket, a tariff has been paid on that when it entered the single market.

Enzokk wrote: »

It says they are not allowed to authorise new regulations that create new border arrangements. So I read it as they cannot create a deal that makes this happen and actually not that it cannot happen. But this is the first time I see it and I am sure it has been scrutinized by legal eagles before who has looked at it in Ireland, the EU and the UK.

No it does not say that.
It says "Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations..."
That is effectively a neutral position.

Shelga

20silkcut wrote: »

https://youtu.be/lEk9sDbK8D0


This link is worth a look it explains that no deal basically can’t happen.

No deal has to be legislated in parliament. (Good luck with that)
The EU can’t kick a member out against its wishes.
If it’s not legislated in parliament then that’s against their wishes

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

Junkyard Tom

recedite wrote: »

If the UK and NI leaves without a deal, how is the EU going to exert this level of control over a part of the UK and NI, against the will of its people?

A clear majority in the north didn't want to leave the EU and a clear majority do not want a border of any sort.

peasant

Shelga wrote: »

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

As I understand it, they probably still would just leave without a deal...but by doing so they would commit an illegal act (acc. to UK law). Which in real terms is neither here nor there, except for one problem...corporations (eg Nissan, Honda, big pharma) and even whole countries could sue them until their pockets are empty.

iguana

Labour tweeted yesterday looking for people with no plans for this weekend to help them canvass. Hasn't gone down too well with the Put it to the People marchers.

https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1109155782287740928

20silkcut

Shelga wrote: »

Doesn’t this go against everything we’ve been told over the last 3 years? So if parliament don’t explicitly vote to give permission for no deal, UK would just stay in the EU forever and ever?

Maybe someone should tell the other 27 heads of state in the EU, as none of them seem to be aware of this.

This Youtuber is wrong. No deal was effectively legislated and leaving their expressed wish when they activated article 50 two years ago.

bob mcbob

The leader of the SNP was verbally abused by leave supporters when leaving parliament during the week.

He was called "A traitor to England"

Says it all really

recedite

Donald Trump wrote: »

Answer me this. Lets consider a hypothetical situation. If the UK had signed an agreement with Ireland, lets say we call it the "Great Thursday agreement" which said that there would be All-island cooperation and explicitly no borders, would that have given a court in Belfast the authority to prevent the UK Parliament from withdrawing from the EU?

Yes it would, but the GFA did not dispose of the border.
On the contrary, the GFA fully legitimised the border.
Prior to the GFA, the RoI had an unresolved "aspirational" claim on the territory of the whole island, which we formally rescinded at the time.
In case you have forgotten, that required a referendum. The nineteenth.


Also your insistence that a Belfast court does not have sufficient jurisdiction within the British system is nonsense. A case heard in Belfast can go all the way up to the UK Supreme Court, which can move to Belfast (and has done).

peasant

20silkcut wrote: »

This Youtuber is wrong. No deal was effectively legislated and leaving their expressed wish when they activated article 50 two years ago.

But the withdrawal act was legislated for later (2018), sort of fleshing out article 50 (a EU law) for local UK law (and making those provisions for the NI/IRL border)

Capt'n Midnight

recedite wrote: »

Not bad. Only another 62 million to go.

Total number of UK Parliamentary electors compared to previous year

England – 38,371,400, a decrease of 0.8%

Wales – 2,230,100, a decrease of 1.4%

Scotland – 3,925,800, a decrease of 0.6%

Northern Ireland – 1,248,400, an increase of 0.5%


The only number that matters is the 40m in England and Wales, get more than 20m of them and the Tories might have to reconsider.


Only joking, what matters is how the local party responds. As long as people aren't defecting to Labour it's all good.

road_high

How’s the people’s march going in London?

recedite

Donald Trump wrote: »

No it was signed.


Hence after the U-turn - "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed".


Can the EU force the UK to honour it? No. That doesn't mean they have to continue on as if nothing happened.


If you give your mate 20 quid down the pub and he doesn't pay you back, is there anything you can do about it? No. But you might remember it the next time he rings you up and says "hey, will you give me a hand next week with this thing" .

It was not ratified by parliament, therefore the UK has not agreed it.
A better analogy is this.. you down the pub and borrow 20 quid, signing a document to say your dad will refund the money.

Junkyard Tom

recedite wrote: »

Yes it would, but the GFA did not dispose of the border.

It disposed of security infrastructure which would be required for the reintroduction of a visible border.

Prior to the GFA, the RoI had an unresolved "aspirational" claim on the territory of the whole island, which we formally rescinded at the time.

No it was an actual territorial claim that was diluted to an aspiration. The aspiration remains.

_______________________________________________________________________

Article 3 (1)

It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland

_______________________________________________________________________

recedite

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Total number of UK Parliamentary electors compared to previous year

You don't have to be on the UK register of electors to sign an online petition.
You probably don't even have to be in the UK.

Donald Trump

recedite wrote: »

Yes it would

Ok. Lets deal with this bit by bit.
Do you think that the Common Aviation agreement was also a figment of someone's imagination?


Because if the UK had signed that, it would surely have also likely prevented exit from the EU?


Because we have established that you believe that signing an international agreement could have prevented the UK from exiting the UK if it meant that the terms of that agreement were not honoured. All it would have taken was for someone to take a case in a court in Belfast (maybe Michael O'Leary) from saying "Hey, this breaks the Common Aviation agreement" and that would have been the end of it using your logic.



Therefore do you believe that the UK did not sign that Common Aviation agreement?

The Rape of Lucretia

Patser wrote: »

And I was pointing out that a record breaking petition (and possibly march) for an alternative should be mana from heaven from the Man that wants to be the alternative to the PM, not attendance at a local Party launch in a small seaside town hundreds of miles away.

4 million signatures (and rising) is not inconsequential in a time when there are few clearly accepted alternatives

The 4 million signatures people, and tge final say march people are all part of the problem, not the solution. They are making the same mistake as their MPs - still arguing amongst themselves about what they want. The UK is in political civil war. As a country, and as a parliament. So of course there is chaos, and it is impossible for the EU to strike a real deal. Of course, they did strike a deal - but it is worthless due to the civil war, removing the power from the executive, to implement it.
People are complaining about the commons - but the electorate is no better - all sides are still back fighting the referendum.

Loafing Oaf

This guy reckons if TM wants to push the UK over the cliff if and when her deal is conclusively shut down, it will be very difficult to stop her. I wonder is he right.

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

The signs are numerous that she is moving towards accepting no deal as a palatable alternative to her withdrawal plan, should it fall...

Remember, if no deal is to be avoided, it has to be her signature on that letter to Brussels demanding a further delay beyond April 12...

Even a motion of no confidence in the government might not be enough: it triggers a 14-day period that could take us past 12 April.

CelticRambler

recedite wrote: »

So you dismiss Norway and Switzerland because they have "free movement of people". Are you not aware that Ireland and UK have always had free movement of people, a freedom going right back to the beginning of time?
Codified in modern times as the CTA.

I am aware of it, and (a) it is not codified - it is a gentleman's agreement, and in (very) recent times, GB has tried to kill it off; but (b) more relevant is the fact the RoI will remain an EU member and as such offers free movement rights to 500million people, none of whom will have the automatic right to cross into the UK at the UK-EU border in Ireland just because Irish citizens do.

recedite wrote: »

Your youtube guy who claims any kind of physical border controls are specifically prohibited by UK legislation is wrong. It saysThat is not the same as "prohibiting" something.

I prefer to get my info from Her Majesty's Government rather than YouTube. The relevant legislation states:

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.

Sure, you can argue that "prohibiting" something is not the same as "denying authorisation" but the effect is the same: the UK government has specfically stated that new infrastructure on the border is not allowed.

recedite wrote: »

You're conflating a lot of different ideas here. Those borders are "soft" IMO. The border between South Korea and NK is "hard".
Its true, a lot of these definitions are open to interpretation.

My interpretation of a hard border is one with armed police and customs agents, huge lorry parks, sniffer dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, vehicle x-ray facilities, passport checks, APNR, and a guy who may well invite you to "step out of the vehicle please". In other words, the kind of border between Switzerland and the EU, between Norway and the EU, and between Kent and the EU. You may interpret those as "soft" border arrangements, but I doubt you'll find many people in the border counties of Ireland (north or south) who'd agree with you.