Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

RobMc59

BluePlanet wrote: »

Has anybody mentioned that it's a little odd that it's John Bolton (US National Security Advisor) making the statements about a trade deal with the UK?
I mean, why the National Security Advisor and not say... anyone from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, or US Dept of Commerce?

My guess it is evidence that UK/US trade deal is in the Foreign Policy bucket and not Trade.

Is it possible Bolton could be speaking out at the request of Trump?Him and Johnson are two peas in a pod and it`s well know Trump is`nt enamoured with the EU.Plus the fact Trump possibly see`s an isolated UK as even more compliant to his demands.

Spanish Eyes

The UK should leave now. Why are they still in the EU?

But no, have to be top dog all the time. The more silent the EU is, the better really.

I think EU will survive without them now, and a plague on all their houses. UK even if they stay will never be trusted members ever again now. Just my view.

leche solara

Flex wrote: »

Im just waiting for the moment that a UK government minister comes out to announce how the chocolate ration is being increased to 20 grams a week

I don't think they're allowed to talk in grams

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

Anyway, let's suppose that the UK flagrantly reneged on the GFA. What would be the consequences, internationally? I mean, I can see that it wouldn't help relations with the EU and Ireland, but those seem to be going downhill either way. What else? International condemnation? Can they be summonsed to legal proceedings in the Hague? Does their credit rating take a blow? Do other countries really care? Would it make them more reticent to cut a deal with the UK?

Someone else might have more information on the potential legal ramifications. Ultimately I don't think there us much that can be done legally to hold a countries feet to the fire if they decide to breach an international agreement. You can probably lodge a dispute with the UN but if they other side decide not to care what the international community has to say about it, there is little else that can be done.

It depends on the country, among mature nations that value a rules based international order, like Japan for example, fragrantly breaching a binding agreement is akin to sh**ing the bed and they would be very wary of doing a deal with such a country.

Countries who do not value the rules, like Albania, probably wont care and will still do a deal if there is some advantage for them. In either case however, you put yourself on the back foot in future deals, you invite your partners to be more agresive with you in negiotations becasue you are a riskier proposition and they can raise that in talks and push for greater concessions to make dealing with you worth the risk.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

They are trying to figure out how they have gone from believing they had the best deal they could of wished for, to one which puts most of the countries into recession.

One.

Not a single one of your predictions have come to pass.

You must really hate living in Ireland with the vitriol which you pursue our standing in the world .

Kermit.de.frog

brickster69 wrote: »

They are trying to figure out how they have gone from believing they had the best deal they could of wished for, to one which puts most of the countries into recession.

Which countries would be put in to recession (aside from the UK)?

Facts, figures and references please.

brickster69

listermint wrote: »

Not a single one of your predictions have come to pass.

I predicted the WA was dead months ago.:)

Also predicted Deutche Bank would turn into a zombie bank which could bring the whole pack of cards down.

brickster69

Also will predict for the next 12 months.

A. EU will cut interest rates into further negative territory
B. Printing presses will start up again to purchase junk bonds no one else will buy
C. Inflation will not fall
D. A Euro bank will be bailed out contrary to EU rules

jimmycrackcorm

brickster69 wrote: »

Also will predict for the next 12 months.

A. EU will cut interest rates into further negative territory
B. Printing presses will start up again to purchase junk bonds no one else will buy
C. Inflation will not fall
D. A Euro bank will be bailed out contrary to EU rules

I think you are really afraid to predict what will happen the UK in the same time frame.
With a hard brexit, any woes in the EU will pale insignificantly to the UKs.

As for a bailout, you might recall RBS, so weekdays different this time?

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

I predicted the WA was dead months ago.:)

Still alive, so you get zilch for that. We'll revisit after October 31st

brickster69 wrote: »

Also predicted Deutche Bank would turn into a zombie bank which could bring the whole pack of cards down.

So you'll be able to quote the post in which you predicted this. Not that I don't believe you or anything... well, actually, you haven't said anything true so far that I've seen.

Thargor

General election this year pretty much confirmed by not too tech savvy Tory, not that Boris shaking the magic money tree all over the place wasnt a sign:

https://twitter.com/TaliFraser/status/1161244772662697985

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Someone else might have more information on the potential legal ramifications. Ultimately I don't think there us much that can be done legally to hold a countries feet to the fire if they decide to breach an international agreement.

The Agreement assumes continuing EU membership for both
the UK and Ireland but binds neither explicitly to maintaining that membership. The 2016 Belfast High Court case outlined in Section 1 ruled that there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement to prevent the triggering of Article 50.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI%282017%29583116_EN.pdf

Imreoir2

brickster69 wrote: »

The Agreement assumes continuing EU membership for both
the UK and Ireland but binds neither explicitly to maintaining that membership. The 2016 Belfast High Court case outlined in Section 1 ruled that there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement to prevent the triggering of Article 50.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI%282017%29583116_EN.pdf

Sure, that is why Ireland has never argued otherwise. The Irish government never claimed that the UK leaving the EU would breach the GFA. It is HOW the UK leaves the EU that poses a risk to the GFA. As such, the UK can leave the EU without breching the GFA, but must implement the measures outlined in the backstop to do it.

trellheim

Damian Hinds was fired as Education secretary a couple of weeks ago by Johnson. He is on record as supporting the backstop

https://www.skygroup.sky/corporate/media-centre/articles/en-gb/Sophy-Ridge-on-Sunday-Interview-with-Damian-Hinds-Education-Sec

I very much doubt this was a mistake given the furore and recriminations under May over people leaving No. 10 showing documents to reporters "files flipping open"

briany

brickster69 wrote: »

The Agreement assumes continuing EU membership for both
the UK and Ireland but binds neither explicitly to maintaining that membership. The 2016 Belfast High Court case outlined in Section 1 ruled that there was nothing in the Good Friday Agreement to prevent the triggering of Article 50.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI%282017%29583116_EN.pdf

It's not Article 50 that's the problem. It's the fact that the UK refuses to implement it in such a way that does not damage the GFA. No soft brexit, no workable technological solutions, and not even a real conversation about the whole issue before the referendum.

BluePlanet

briany wrote: »

It's not Article 50 that's the problem. It's the fact that the UK refuses to implement it in such a way that does not damage the GFA. No soft brexit, no workable technological solutions, and not even a real conversation about the whole issue before the referendum.

Failure to engage with Ireland about it, failure to engage the North South Ministerial Council about it, failure even to work with both factions in NI about it.

Add: Failure to engage the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference about it.
Particularly since the NI Assembly is not working.

Imreoir2

BluePlanet wrote: »

Failure to engage with Ireland about it, failure to engage the North South Ministerial Council about it, failure even to work with both factions in NI about it.

To be fair the former government, for all their faults, did agree a workable solution in the backstop.

brickster69

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Sure, that is why Ireland has never argued otherwise. The Irish government never claimed that the UK leaving the EU would breach the GFA. It is HOW the UK leaves the EU that poses a risk to the GFA. As such, the UK can leave the EU without breching the GFA, but must implement the measures outlined in the backstop to do it.

The UK has said it will not put checks on the border, IRE has said the same as well as the EU. So the GFA will not be broken.

What you are saying is checks done away from the border will break the GFA now ?

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

The UK has said it will not put checks on the border, IRE has said the same as well as the EU. So the GFA will not be broken.

What you are saying is checks done away from the border will break the GFA now ?

Imagine that. You're wrong again. And I don't even have to post something to prove it, because you said this already a page ago and that's where you can go for your answer.

Edit: In fact a quick search shows you bringing this issue up at least half a dozen times in the last week or so. Answered each time, fully and comprehensively. Which answers were of course ignored by you in order that you can rinse and repeat it.

Borderhopper

Anyone that thinks that checks can be made away from the border has obviously never been to said border.

Smuggling is not seen as a crime among border communities, as I know prominent politicians (of both colours!), civil servants and members of HMRC have engaged in smuggling.

Anything can be smuggled. Wherever there is a price differential, someone will exploit it. And to think that checks only on goods will have no effect on the movement of people is naive in the extreme. Sure, passports might not be needed for someone to cross the border, but that’s not much consolation when they’re sat for an hour in a queue.

brickster69

Well seen as IRE can not take the UK to the International courts and the GFA only mentions militarization of the border not checks on goods at the border. How is an agreement broken. You would get laughed out of court if you could even take it there.

the GFA needs amending which the EU report actually suggests.

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

The UK has said it will not put checks on the border, IRE has said the same as well as the EU. So the GFA will not be broken.

What you are saying is checks done away from the border will break the GFA now ?

Any checks at all anywhere would be in breach of the GFA. If there are customs checks even 20 miles from the physical line on the map, that equates to "border infrastructure" and a hard border between the two jurisdictions.

brickster69

Smuggling is not seen as a crime among border communities, as I know prominent politicians (of both colours!), civil servants and members of HMRC have engaged in smuggling.

What and you think that every road along the EU frontier with Russia is manned to prevent smuggling from one side to the other. Look at Italy and Greece they are smuggling people in every day of the week.

A Dub in Glasgo

Came back in to find the page number jumped quite today abit only to find it is the same brexiter argument

Meanwhile in the Scottish courts today

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1161259449274765312

brickster69

Strazdas wrote: »

Any checks at all anywhere would be in breach of the GFA. If there are customs checks even 20 miles from the physical line on the map, that equates to "border infrastructure" and a hard border between the two jurisdictions.

But the GFA does not mention border infrastructure is not allowed does it ! It only mentions military outposts. It is in black and white !

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Came back in to find the page number jumped quite today abit only to find it is the same brexiter argument

Meanwhile in the Scottish courts today

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1161259449274765312

I don't think it'll be needed. All indications are that Johnson is going to call an election and it will be for before b-day 3. And he'll do it immediately on parliament resuming I suspect.

prawnsambo

brickster69 wrote: »

But the GFA does not mention border infrastructure is not allowed does it ! It only mentions military outposts. It is in black and white !

Why did the government put it in the withdrawal act then?

Strazdas

brickster69 wrote: »

But the GFA does not mention border infrastructure is not allowed does it ! It only mentions military outposts. It is in black and white !

It didn't need to. It is a peace treaty with the aim of 'promoting peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland'. Reinstating the (controversial and deeply unpopular) hard border from the Troubles could not possibly tie in with that aim.

Imagine if Angela Merkel announced tomorrow she was rebuilding the border between west and east Germany.

FrancieBrady

Strazdas wrote: »

It didn't need to. It is a peace treaty with the aim of 'promoting peace and reconciliation on the island of Ireland'. Reinstating the (controversial and deeply unpopular) hard border from the Troubles could not possibly tie in with that aim.

Hard to believe there are people in Ireland who don't understand that. I am assuming brickster is Irish. It's the kind of lack of informationknowledge the British suffer from.

trellheim

All indications are that Johnson is going to call an election and it will be for before b-day 3. And he'll do it immediately on parliament resuming I suspect.

An interesting proposition. He cannot do it by himself - barred by FTPA.

As it stands since May called that disastrous election in 2017, its a 5 year parliament to 2022

there are only two ways out before 5 years up

a) Vote of no confidence

b) over 2/3 of the HoC vote for it.

So the assumption is that Labour would vote for it ( in the meantime, carefully entangling Labour in the burning ship ). The numbers and the focus groups look like they have been done

Labour have always said they want another GE so the assumption is they would . The last and most interesting point here is that if you DO vote for one, its 25 WORKING days of no parliamentary business - at least 5 weeks - and with Parliament out of office you cant stop brexit in the House until everyone's back


House returns 3 September and Brexit date is 31 October..... predict some of the craziest shenanigans you have ever seen between those dates