Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

I'm British and I'm ashamed and embarrassed about the way Johnson and his cronies are behaving-the British political system needs a serious overhaul asap.

I think we may be nearing the bottom of the bereavement curve.

pjohnson

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hmm,



It would seem you are no better at achieving a Threxit than the cons are at Brexit.

Boris lost six votes in a row, no deal is off the table, and he's been denied an election, and they have suspended parliament for five weeks - which I imagine they thought was an epic stroke at the time - but in hindsight looks more like a squelchy brain fart.

I think it's looking like a resignation from BoJo followed by an extension, or the DUPers being shafted, and a border in the sea and special status for the north.

I'd be happy enough with either of those two scenarios tbh.

As a loyal disciple of BoJo Threxit was obviously always going to be all talk with no action.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

how does that affect NI's status in the UK?

It need not change NI's status within the UK.

The Kingdom of Denmark is partly within, and partly without, the EU, and nobody has ever suggested that that means it is no longer a united kingdom.

There was, in principle, nothing to stop the UK respecting the result of the referendum by opening negotiations with the EU on the possibility of part of the UK (NI and Scotland) remaining in the EU while the rest (England and Wales) withdraws; that's basically what happened with Denmark.

In fact what's proposed is less radical than that; the whole of the UK will withdraw from the EU, but part of it (NI only) will thereafter have a closer external relationship to the EU and than the rest of it. I see no reason why this should be considered to alter NI's status as a part of the UK. It will of course mean that in certain respects different laws apply in NI and GB, more so than is already the case, but that's not inconsistent with NI being part of the UK; the UK has always had different laws applying in different parts of the kingdom; it's one of the things that characterises the UK.

Kidchameleon

pjohnson wrote: »

As a loyal disciple of BoJo Threxit was obviously always going to be all talk with no action.

Sorry that was the Threxit interim period. Now entering the article 50 period so I'm off until the 31st Oct. Ill still be watching though. Bye.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It need not change NI's status within the UK.

The Kingdom of Denmark is partly within, and partly without, the EU, and nobody has ever suggested that that means it is no longer a united kingdom.

There was, in principle, nothing to stop the UK respecting the result of the referendum by opening negotiations with the EU on the possibility of part of the UK (NI and Scotland) remaining in the EU while the rest (England and Wales) withdraws; that's basically what happened with Denmark.

In fact what's proposed is less radical than that; the whole of the UK will withdraw from the EU, but part of it (NI only) will thereafter have a closer external relationship to the EU and than the rest of it. I see no reason why this should be considered to alter NI's status as a part of the UK. It will of course mean that in certain respects different laws apply in NI and GB, more so than is already the case, but that's not inconsistent with NI being part of the UK; the UK has always had different laws applying in different parts of the kingdom; it's one of the things that characterises the UK.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. My point is that the DUP have a fairly strong argument that it does though.

I would suggest that their argument of an Irish sea border breaching the GFA is stronger than the argument that a land border does.

FrancieBrady

As well as fracturing the Tory party, Brexit looks like it could fracture the DUP rather than it losing the Unionist vote.

I can see many going towards Jim Allister's TUV rather than have any truck with accepting a Backstop/sea border in disguise.

McMurphy

Aegir wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree with you. My point is that the DUP have a fairly strong argument that it does though.

I would suggest that their argument of an Irish sea border breaching the GFA is stronger than the argument that a land border does.

Sorry Aegir, I was dropping my 2 youngest off at their school, I see Peregrinus has answered this already (and much more cleverly worded than I could have).

However, the DUP might well argue about the GFA, but bear in mind they opposed the GFA in anyways, I imagine if the party's involved in actually drawing up, and implement the GFA can live with the border in the sea, the DUP will have to suck it up and swallow it.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

I don't necessarily disagree with you. My point is that the DUP have a fairly strong argument that it does though.

I would suggest that their argument of an Irish sea border breaching the GFA is stronger than the argument that a land border does.

Honestly? No.

The fundamental threat to the GFA here is not the backstop (any version) at all; it's Brexit itself or, at any rate, hard Brexit. The GFA is predicated on close co-operation between the UK and Ireland "as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"; it says so right there on the first page of the British-Irish agreement. Aned as we know one of the fundamental principles on which it rests is "parity of esteem" for "the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities". A Brexit which requires one identity to be treated as "foreign" in NI in a way that the other is not is clearly antithetical to this. Fuss about border infrastructure and disruption to the all-Ireland economy and so forth is valid, but these are merely specific instances of the general problem.

(Hard Brexit, of course, also undermines NI's place in the union in another way, indirect but nevertheless important. NI, as we know, voted against Brexit, but is having Brexit imposed on it nevertheless. And not just Brexit, as mandated by the referendum, but hard Brexit, as chosen by HMG some months after the referendum. And they must have chosen it knowing - or, at best, not having bothered to find out - that it is the form of Brexit calculated to do maximal harm to NI. And, mitigation for NI having been negotiated and agreed, the UK government is now repudiating that, despite the fact that it would benefit NI, is desired by a majority in NI, and does not prevent GB from enjoying Brexit on whatever terms it wishes. All of this must draw to the attention of the people of NI how little standign they have in the UK; how little value to them their participation in its political institutions is; how much disdain and disregard they are treated with by UK political institutions. That can't do a lot for the health of the union and NI's place in it.)

The backstop, as I see it, is an attempt to mitigate the harm that hard Brexit inflicts on the GFA. It's not perfect, and it wouldn't mitigate it fully and, yes, if it requires checks and controls on NI-GB trade, that is inconsistent with and harmful to the GFA. (But, note, the backstop on its own doesn't require checks and controls; they only become necessary if customs, goods regulations etc in GB are separated from those of the EU, which is of course a choice of the UK.)

But I think sea border checks and controls are less harmful to the GFA and its principles than land border checks and controls, simply because they have less impact; they are less of a departure from the current state of affairs; the change they represent is not so great. So, if NI is forced to choose between land border controls and sea border controls, choosing sea border controls is rational and self-interested - it minimises economic harm to NI - and also does less violence to the principles, terms and ethos of the GFA.

The bottom line is that the UK wants to make changes which are signficantly adverse to the GFA. Those changes are adverse (in slightly different ways) whether they are confined to GB alone, or extended to NI, but they are more adverse if extended to NI. The backstop therefore does not harm the GFA; it fails to mitigate completely the harm done by hard Brexit, but that's a different thing.

Danzy

Aegir wrote: »

how does that affect NI's status in the UK?

There could then be a referendum on it, it would comfortably pass In the North.

woohoo!!!

NI unionists, nationalists all knew that sooner or later Westminster would shaft them when no longer needed. The DUP acting the big man, throwing shapes have long been overdue a big slap down. RHI review due out soon too. They're a bunch of gombeens with wierd hang ups, their future is a gradual downward spiral. Their attempts to dump GFA will haunt them.

The next GE will see a further fragmentation of both vote share and seats in Westminster. Therefore extension or no extension will just see more division and no decisions, precisely why the EU must cut the cord and let them sort out their own mess

McMurphy

Arlene reportedly on the plane to London this morning.

I wonder if they're about to be shafted?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Honestly? No.

The fundamental threat to the GFA here is not the backstop (any version) at all; it's Brexit itself or, at any rate, hard Brexit. The GFA is predicated on close co-operation between the UK and Ireland "as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union"; it says so right there on the first page of the British-Irish agreement. Aned as we know one of the fundamental principles on which it rests is "parity of esteem" for "the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities". A Brexit which requires one identity to be treated as "foreign" in NI in a way that the other is not is clearly antithetical to this. Fuss about border infrastructure and disruption to the all-Ireland economy and so forth is valid, but these are merely specific instances of the general problem.

That is not so.

If a hard Brexit happened tomorrow, the rights of Irish nationals born and living in the North will not change in anyway. The CTA sees to this.

The simple fact though, is that an Irish National living in Northern Ireland is a foreigner, of their own free will. Being in or out of the EU does not change that.

The two governments have confirmed this:

The CTA involving Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man facilitates the ability of Irish and British citizens to move freely within the CTA. Flowing from this right to move freely are associated reciprocal rights and privileges that are enjoyed daily by British citizens in Ireland, and Irish citizens in the UK. These include access to employment, healthcare, all levels of education, and social benefits on the same basis as
citizens of the other State, as well as the right to vote in local and national parliamentary elections.

In entering into this Memorandum of Understanding, the two Governments today reaffirm the standing of Irish and British citizens in each other’s countries by virtue of the CTA. For generations, Irish and British people have moved seamlessly between our countries, and developed deep and lasting ties. Although predating it, the CTA has also underpinned the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement. The CTA has and will continue to enhance and nurture
bilateral relations between our countries.

Both the Government of Ireland and the UK Government are committed to maintaining the CTA in all circumstances, recognising it pre-dates Irish and UK membership of the European Union and is not dependent on it. Neither Irish citizens in the UK nor British citizens in Ireland are required to take any action to protect their status and rights associated with the CTA. Both Governments are committed to undertake all the work necessary, including through legislative provision, to ensure that the agreed CTA rights and privileges are
protected.

Peregrinus wrote: »

(Hard Brexit, of course, also undermines NI's place in the union in another way, indirect but nevertheless important. NI, as we know, voted against Brexit, but is having Brexit imposed on it nevertheless. And not just Brexit, as mandated by the referendum, but hard Brexit, as chosen by HMG some months after the referendum. And they must have chosen it knowing - or, at best, not having bothered to find out - that it is the form of Brexit calculated to do maximal harm to NI. And, mitigation for NI having been negotiated and agreed, the UK government is now repudiating that, despite the fact that it would benefit NI, is desired by a majority in NI, and does not prevent GB from enjoying Brexit on whatever terms it wishes. All of this must draw to the attention of the people of NI how little standign they have in the UK; how little value to them their participation in its political institutions is; how much disdain and disregard they are treated with by UK political institutions. That can't do a lot for the health of the union and NI's place in it.)

And if Northern Ireland doesn't like this, then it can hold a border poll any time it likes.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The backstop, as I see it, is an attempt to mitigate the harm that hard Brexit inflicts on the GFA. It's not perfect, and it wouldn't mitigate it fully and, yes, if it requires checks and controls on NI-GB trade, that is inconsistent with and harmful to the GFA. (But, note, the backstop on its own doesn't require checks and controls; they only become necessary if customs, goods regulations etc in GB are separated from those of the EU, which is of course a choice of the UK.)

But I think sea border checks and controls are less harmful to the GFA and its principles than land border checks and controls, simply because they have less impact; they are less of a departure from the current state of affairs; the change they represent is not so great. So, if NI is forced to choose between land border controls and sea border controls, choosing sea border controls is rational and self-interested - it minimises economic harm to NI - and also does less violence to the principles, terms and ethos of the GFA.

The bottom line is that the UK wants to make changes which are signficantly adverse to the GFA. Those changes are adverse (in slightly different ways) whether they are confined to GB alone, or extended to NI, but they are more adverse if extended to NI. The backstop therefore does not harm the GFA; it fails to mitigate completely the harm done by hard Brexit, but that's a different thing.

not really, the backstop recognises the fact that a hard border on this island is pretty much unworkable for both parties and needs to be addressed.

The GFA excuse is just that, an excuse.

FrancieBrady

This is NI's current status as per the 'constitution' and NI ACT

It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act.

A sea border does not change that anymore than arrangements for agriculture currently do.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

That is not so.

If a hard Brexit happened tomorrow, the rights of Irish nationals born and living in the North will not change in anyway. The CTA sees to this.

The simple fact though, is that an Irish National living in Northern Ireland is a foreigner, of their own free will. Being in or out of the EU does not change that.

The two governments have confirmed this:

Yes, I know. But their social and economic connections and relations with their co-nationals in the rest of Ireland would be significantly disrupted and degraded by new laws introduced by the British government - disruption and degradation that won't have any parallel for those who identify as British, and their relationships with their co-nationals in Great Britain. That's the problem.

Aegir wrote: »

And if Northern Ireland doesn't like this, then it can hold a border poll any time it likes.

That's not a good enough answer. NI and its citizens (of both identities) have a right to be part of the UK on the terms provided by the GFA.

Aegir wrote: »

not really, the backstop recognises the fact that a hard border on this island is pretty much unworkable for both parties and needs to be addressed.

The GFA excuse is just that, an excuse.

It's not an excuse at all; it's a genuine issue. On the one hand, as you point out, a border on this island is "pretty much unworkable". On the other hand, serious attempts were made to work it for 70 years, and those attempts inflicted great economic, social and political harm. Mechananisms to prevent this happening again must be found. On the one hand, the UK says that it "guarantees" that this will be prevented. On the other, the UK has rejected the mechanisms that currently avoid it, rejected not one but two replacement mechanisms for avoiding it, and has failed or refused to suggest any operable mechanism that it is willing to accept, all of which contributes to the impression that the UK's "guarantee" isn't worth very much, and that it simply will not make the choices it needs to make if a hard border is to be avoided.

knipex

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Well you are wrong and you need to start reviewing wider sources for your information.

Parliament cannot bind its successors, any form of a Bill of Rights cannot be entrenched, and a subsequent parliament could repeal the act. In the government's words, "[It is our tradition] to allow any Act of Parliament to be amended or repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament."

No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament). A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

In this post you are 100% correct. PARLIAMENT

That is not the same this as government.

Parliament can vote to repeal or amend an existing law but as proven by the current situation that does not necessarily mean a government can.

There will not be an election before Oct 19th so its highly unlikely that a government will be able to repeal any law before an extension must be requested..

Danzy

Border checks and Infrastrusre are one thing.

Regulatory misalignment, the paper work involved etc are going to cause massive damage in the border counties and the North.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, I know. But their social and economic connections and relations with their co-nationals in the rest of Ireland would be significantly disrupted and degraded by new laws introduced by the British government - disruption and degradation that won't have any parallel for those who identify as British, and their relationships with their co-nationals in Great Britain. That's the problem.

Such as?

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not a good enough answer. NI and its citizens (of both identities) have a right to be part of the UK on the terms provided by the GFA.

and nothing is changing that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not an excuse at all; it's a genuine issue. On the one hand, as you point out, a border on this island is "pretty much unworkable". On the other hand, serious attempts were made to work it for 70 years, and those attempts inflicted great economic, social and political harm.

oh right, it was a border.

Not isolationsit policies and active terrorist groups, it was down to the border :rolleyes:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mechananisms to prevent this happening again must be found. On the one hand, the UK says that it "guarantees" that this will be prevented. On the other, the UK has rejected the mechanisms that currently avoid it, rejected not one but two replacement mechanisms for avoiding it, and has failed or refused to suggest any operable mechanism that it is willing to accept, all of which contributes to the impression that the UK's "guarantee" isn't worth very much, and that it simply will not make the choices it needs to make if a hard border is to be avoided.

I agree, the border must remain as it is currently, it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

Wherever you put the customs border though, one side of the divide is going to claim it is a breach of the GFA. My argument is, that the DUP would have as strong, if not stronger case to argue that it is a breach of the GFA, as it changes NI's status in the UK.

Danzy

Danzy wrote: »

Border checks and Infrastrusre are one thing.

Regulatory misalignment, the paper work involved etc are going to cause massive damage in the border counties and the North.

and it seems as though the DUP are finally getting this.

McMurphy

Jeffrey Donaldson on the phone with Newstalk right now.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

Such as?

Perhaps you're not old enough to recall the persistent depression, depopulation, etc that characterised communities on both sides of the border until the early 90s. But I am.

Borders disrupt social and economic relations and relationships. That's how they work. That's why they mostly follow existing social and geographic boundaries and the ones that don't are the ones that cause the most disruption.

Aegir wrote: »

and nothing is changing that.

Hard Brexit changes it, as already pointed out.

Aegir wrote: »

oh right, it was a border.

Not isolationsit policies and active terrorist groups, it was down to the border :rolleyes:

What's with the simplistic childish binaries. Aegir? Of course the border was socially, economically and politically harmful. If you can find a serious historian, economist, etc who argues otherwise, now would be a good time to point to him. If you can't, this is a dead horse best left unflogged.

Aegir wrote: »

I agree, the border must remain as it is currently, it is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

Wherever you put the customs border though, one side of the divide is going to claim it is a breach of the GFA. My argument is, that the DUP would have as strong, if not stronger case to argue that it is a breach of the GFA, as it changes NI's status in the UK.

It doesn't change NI's status in the UK. NI would still be an integral part of the UK, exactly as it is now - UK territory, represented in the UK parliament, people born there have birthright UK citizenship, subject to the sovereignty of the crown in parliament, everything - the works.

Charles Babbage

Aegir wrote: »

Such as?

Wherever you put the customs border though, one side of the divide is going to claim it is a breach of the GFA. My argument is, that the DUP would have as strong, if not stronger case to argue that it is a breach of the GFA, as it changes NI's status in the UK.

There will be changes without agreement in any case as NI is being dragged out of the EU against the wishes of its people. The backstop is an attempt to limit the damage, the DUP position is that they should get everything, regardless of the wishes of the majority in NI.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't change NI's status in the UK. NI would still be an integral part of the UK, exactly as it is now - UK territory, represented in the UK parliament, people born there have birthright UK citizenship, subject to the sovereignty of the crown in parliament, everything - the works.

except there would be a border there and one part of the UK would be subject to border controls/tariffs that the rest of the UK wouldn't.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

except there would be a border there and one part of the UK would be subject to border controls/tariffs that the rest of the UK wouldn't.

This would be agreed within the UK, so what is the problem? NI Unionists don't want to comply with what the rest of the UK decides to do now?

tigger123

Tories don't give a ****e about the North, or the DUP. They'll agree to a reimagined backstop and we'll all just get on with our lives.

Sweet.Science

tigger123 wrote: »

Tories don't give a ****e about the North, or the DUP. They'll agree to a reimagined backstop and we'll all just get on with our lives.

Its funny that the DUP think anyone cares about them

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This would be agreed within the UK, so what is the problem? NI Unionists don't want to comply with what the rest of the UK decides to do now?

and therefore, the DUP would have a valid argument, that a border in the Irish sea breaches the GFA.

26000 Elephants

Aegir wrote: »

[

and it seems as though the DUP are finally getting this.

The only thing the DUP are 'getting' is a right royal shafting. Without an election they are powerless, and Boris needs (indeed wants) to cut them loose if he wants a deal that allows an October Brexit.

ELM327

Interesting from the guardian
Corbyn confirms that Labour will go into the election proposing a referendum on Brexit, with a credible leave option and remain as the two choices.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/10/anger-abounds-after-parliament-suspended-in-night-of-high-drama-politics-live

6541

I have an issue with the backstop, whilst I love my nationalist brothers and sisters in the 6 counties, the fact that the NI will be in the EU and Britain will give it an unfair advantage over the ROI.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

and therefore, the DUP would have a valid argument, that a border in the Irish sea breaches the GFA.

Their status in the UK hasn't changed. They cannot argue a breach from a Unionist position imo.
But if Trimble hasn't already thrown in his hat there will be a challenge, so we shall see soon enough.