Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Shelga wrote: »

Anything less than around 56-58% voting in favour of reunification with Ireland, and you’ll see huge trouble. I think we’re a long long way off those kinds of numbers.

A reunification referendum in the north that has a 50.2% result in favour of a united Ireland, will bring us years and years of trouble and strife. Dare I say, civil war?

I’d say wait 5+ years after a no deal Brexit, minimum, let’s just see what happens long-term.

Nah you won't. I mean, a hundred years on from Carson's threat to mobilise the Ulster Volunteers and we're still afraid of kowtowing to the loyalist fringe.

Give over.

BobbyBobberson

One thing Brexit has shown is that there needs to be a very clear plan post referendum before people go to the poll on a UI.

BonnieSituation

storker wrote: »

As a short-term political solution to the current Brexit-related crisis, perhaps it looks tempting, but to my mind more the short-term the implementation, the more dangerous is it in terms of costs and violence. When it comes to the idea of a United Ireland, there seems to be a "sure won't it be great" mentality that glosses over some serious risks, and I've yet to see them addressed in a realistic manner.

How is a UI a "short-term political solution"?

Shelga

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Nah you won't. I mean, a hundred years on from Carson's threat to mobilise the Ulster Volunteers and we're still afraid of kowtowing to the loyalist fringe.

Give over.

You really think a 50.2% majority will go down well?

BonnieSituation

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

One thing Brexit has shown is that there needs to be a very clear plan post referendum before people go to the poll on a UI.

Which there will be. For all of our faults as a nation, we do referenda very well.

Varadkar's comments at Féile na Phobal in Belfast last night indicate as much that the process of that discussion is beginning.

BonnieSituation

Shelga wrote: »

You really think a 50.2% majority will go down well?

In your hypothetical scenario are the 49.8% minority all rabid loyalists with KAT tattoos all over their body?

As I said. Give over.

BonnieSituation

The Indo at it again this morning.

Now an inconsequential letter from April is the source of the "pressure" and that Leo was "warned" about the triple with the backstop.

Mon dieu. (Also, they can't even get the original Brexit date right ffs)

Indo wrote:

The EU's former negotiator in the war in Bosnia warned Taoiseach Leo Varadkar about the Brexit backstop, it has emerged.

Lord David Owen wrote to Mr Varadkar saying the backstop, designed to avoid a hard Border in Ireland, could represent a "basic contradiction" in the Brexit deal between Theresa May and the EU.

He added that it is "at the core of the dispute between our countries".

Boris Johnson is now demanding that the backstop be scrapped, but this has been met with refusal by the EU and Ireland.

The intervention by Mr Owen, who was the EU's negotiator in the Balkans from 1992-1995, came after the March 31 deadline for Brexit was missed.


Brexit
Former Bosnia negotiator warned Taoiseach of backstop problems



Cormac McQuinn
7 August 2019 2:30 AM


1
Claim: Lord David Owen said there is a basic contradiction at the core of the backstop dispute. Photo: Jack Taylor/Getty Images
The EU's former negotiator in the war in Bosnia warned Taoiseach Leo Varadkar about the Brexit backstop, it has emerged.

Lord David Owen wrote to Mr Varadkar saying the backstop, designed to avoid a hard Border in Ireland, could represent a "basic contradiction" in the Brexit deal between Theresa May and the EU.

He added that it is "at the core of the dispute between our countries".

Boris Johnson is now demanding that the backstop be scrapped, but this has been met with refusal by the EU and Ireland.

The intervention by Mr Owen, who was the EU's negotiator in the Balkans from 1992-1995, came after the March 31 deadline for Brexit was missed.


The former UK foreign secretary, who supported the Leave campaign during the Brexit referendum, said he believed the EU was "dysfunctional" and becoming a 'United States of Europe'.

His letter to Mr Varadkar was released under Freedom of Information laws.

He wrote: "I wish to urge you to carefully consider a possible basic contradiction within the EU-UK Withdrawal Treaty which has so far prevented a majority of British MPs approving it in its present form."

The letter says UK attorney general Geoffrey Cox had determined that the terms of the agreement "could prevent the UK from ever leaving the Irish backstop".

Mr Owen adds: "As a politician I am sure you can understand that this basic contradiction is now at the core of the dispute between our countries.

"Unless this potential basic legal contradiction is grappled with at the highest political level it is hard to see the Withdrawal Treaty being agreed."

Mr Owen suggested the European Court of Justice could consider the issue of the backstop.

He added that he was sending the letter to all EU heads of government, European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/former-bosnia-negotiator-warned-taoiseach-of-backstop-problems-38381697.html

---


It really makes you wonder what they want if this is the sort of stuff that they're seeking under FOI.

There's a stench of an FF drip drip nature to it all.

Bit cynical

murphaph wrote: »

But the UK will want one even more than Ireland.

True but our veto is a power we have within the EU to prevent the EU doing a deal however, in general, we will want that deal more than the EU as a whole. This is why our veto power isn't as useful to us as we might imagine.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

True but our veto is a power we have within the EU to prevent the EU doing a deal however, in general, we will want that deal more than the EU as a whole. This is why our veto power isn't as useful to us as we might imagine.

Why would we accept any deal that has a hard border. We will have already suffered the majority of the economic damage by the time a deal is close to being signed. No deal doesn't change the facts of the border it only removes 1 option. Revoking A50.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The Indo at it again this morning.

Now an inconsequential letter from April is the source of the "pressure" and that Leo was "warned" about the triple with the backstop.

Mon dieu. (Also, they can't even get the original Brexit date right ffs)

https://amp.independent.ie/business/brexit/former-bosnia-negotiator-warned-taoiseach-of-backstop-problems-38381697.html

It really makes you wonder what they want if this is the sort of stuff that they're seeking under FOI.

There's a stench of an FF drip drip nature to it all.

I don't think there's harm in knowing that moderates in the UK are trying their best to resolve problems.

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would we accept any deal that has a hard border. We will have already suffered the majority of the economic damage by the time a deal is close to being signed. No deal doesn't change the facts of the border it only removes 1 option. Revoking A50.

Well I think the scenario proposed would be that the UK is already out of the EU without a deal and now seeking an FTA. In such a scenario, the EU might take a hard line against the UK seeking as many concessions as possible and dragging negotiations out. This make sense from an EU perspective. They have the power to do that.

But in the meantime we in Ireland already have the hard border and tariffs between the two countries hurting small businesses. So in such a situation it is hard to see how we can use our veto power to our advantage as the poster earlier was suggesting.

lobbylad

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Which there will be. For all of our faults as a nation, we do referenda very well.

Varadkar's comments at Féile na Phobal in Belfast last night indicate as much that the process of that discussion is beginning.

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

FrancieBrady

storker wrote: »

As a short-term political solution

Short term?

If the UK intend to stay out of the EU, a UI represents the best LONG TERM solution to critical and potentially catastrophic problems for:
The EU,
London,
and Dublin.

FrancieBrady

lobbylad wrote: »

Also, all the talk seems to be that NI will either:

Stay in the UK
Depart the UK and join the ROI

Why is there no option for NI to exist as an independent nation but remain within the EU (or rejoin if it has to leave first)?

That may even be a useful step on the route to NI/ROI reunification (I'm ignoring the financial capability of NI to exist as an independent nation)

There simply isn't a political lobby for an independent NI. Nobody is looking for one, only those trenchantly against a UI, mostly partitionists in the south.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't think there's harm in knowing that moderates in the UK are trying their best to resolve problems.

Is Lord Owen a moderate?

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Is Lord Owen a moderate?

Founder and former leader of the SDP (now part of the Lib Dems), yes he would be considered a moderate in the UK.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

Founder and former leader of the SDP (now part of the Lib Dems), yes he would be considered a moderate in the UK.

I'll try that again, why do you think he's a moderate?

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I'll try that again, why do you think he's a moderate?

Just from following politics over the years, he's not generally known for taking a hard line on things. Middle of the road pragmatic politician for the most part.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

Just from following politics over the years, he's not generally known for taking a hard line on things. Middle of the road pragmatic politician for the most part.

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the scenario proposed would be that the UK is already out of the EU without a deal and now seeking an FTA. In such a scenario, the EU might take a hard line against the UK seeking as many concessions as possible and dragging negotiations out. This make sense from an EU perspective. They have the power to do that.

But in the meantime we in Ireland already have the hard border and tariffs between the two countries hurting small businesses. So in such a situation it is hard to see how we can use our veto power to our advantage as the poster earlier was suggesting.

Simple any border == NO FTA

storker

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Short term?

If the UK intend to stay out of the EU, a UI represents the best LONG TERM solution to critical and potentially catastrophic problems for:
The EU,
London,
and Dublin.

If implemented in the short-term is what I meant. As someone else has already pointed out, the Brexit fiasco shows that you can't rush such significant changes. Simply moving a line on a map isn't always the fix that it;'s often imagined to be. History shows that quite well.

Short term implementation of a United Ireland is likely to lead to long-term trouble. It might solve an immediate political/legal conundrum, but that that's a long way from guaranteeing no problems on the ground, where extremists aren't necessarily impressed by "solutions" created at higher levels.

FrancieBrady

storker wrote: »

If implemented in the short-term is what I meant. As someone else has already pointed out, the Brexit fiasco shows that you can't rush such significant changes. Simply moving a line on a map isn't always the fix that it;'s often imagined to be. History shows that quite well.

Short term implementation of a United Ireland is likely to lead to long-term trouble. It might solve an immediate political/legal conundrum, but that that's a long way from guaranteeing no problems on the ground, where extremists aren't necessarily impressed by "solutions" created at higher levels.

I don't think anyone is talking about less than a 2 year lead in to a poll, same as Scotland had.

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Simple any border == NO FTA

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Even as a "Leaver" who thinks that Leo has "overplayed his hand"?

Well I've always had the impression that Owen was a reluctant leaver worried about the future direction of the EU.

I think that there's a genuine concern in that letter that Leo may have indeed overplayed his hand. Time will tell but I don't think it is necessarily an immoderate position.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

That's not necessarily true. As a precondition to talks on a FTA, the EU is likely to require the three main planks of the WA. These can be agreed and implemented bilaterally to any trade talks or deals. So basically; sign here, here and here and we'll get on to the trade talks. Leaving NI in the SM and CU would be the outcome I suspect.

LeinsterDub

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

This is the situation we will have a hard border or be heading to it at a rapid pace. No might . So when it comes to a FTA negotiation the first question the British will be asked is how they are going to deal with the border they've erected or forced the EU to erect

Bit cynical

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. As a precondition to talks on a FTA, the EU is likely to require the three main planks of the WA. These can be agreed and implemented bilaterally to any trade talks or deals. So basically; sign here, here and here and we'll get on to the trade talks. Leaving NI in the SM and CU would be the outcome I suspect.

But getting back to the original point, it is hard to see how our veto helps us. If the EU require those things and the UK agrees and proceeds with talks, great. But it is unlikely that our veto is going to be used at any stage to our advantage.

FrancieBrady

Whatever happened Geoffrey Cox anyhow? At one time he was front and centre of it all.

Nody

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, also true

No FTA == border.

And this is the situation we might find ourselves in if there's no deal.

But a FTA does not remove the need for a border; Canada has a FTA agreement and there are still border checks for their incoming goods. FTA is simply one aspect of the overall deal required for there to be no border but it's not a stand alone solution to it (even though Brexiteers love to claim that if EU only agrees to negotiate the FTA it will solve itself).

Bit cynical

LeinsterDub wrote: »

This is the situation we will be in . No might . So when it comes to a FTA negotiation the first question the British will be asked is how they are going to deal with the border they've erected or force the EU to erect

I think it is important to remember that the Common Travel Area will continue even in the event of no deal. The border issue will mainly therefore concern goods and so a free trade agreement will be seen as part of the solution.

The problem for Ireland will be the EU dragging things out. And here our veto can't help us.