Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

briany

Sam Russell wrote: »

. Most USA politicians work on the three 'Is' - Ireland, Italy and Israel. That is where elections are won or lost.

On the other hand, the Irish Taoseach gets an audience with the President of the USA every year to celebrate St Patrick's day. We have many self proclaimed US Irish politicians in key strategic positions right across the spectrum - some of whom declare 'Do not mess with Ireland' directed at the UK.

I think UK threats against Ireland are counter productive.

The only I that I've heard bandied about in U.S. politics is Israel. That's an I that's at the forefront. On the other hand, if American politicians have an Ireland or Italy policy, then it's not been as well publicised. I'm sure they have policies about improving the lives of Irish or Italian Americans if they're campaigning in the relevant areas, but does this extend to a policy on the old countries?

How much is Brexit and its potential threat to the GFA a matter of ongoing political concern for the Micks of Boston, Chicago, New York, and anywhere else that Irish communities have become established?

GM228

Just a reminder the judgement from the Outer House of the Court of Session is due very soon...

connemara man

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

If UK nukes the CTA that means they would have to put a physical border not just for goods but also for people.

Stopping freedom of movement for Europeans kinda kills the CTA doesn't it.

A European enters Ireland through Dublin hops on a bus to Belfast. Or stays for a week then goes on a flight to London. Won't there need to be checks somewhere?

CelticRambler

connemara man wrote: »

Stopping freedom of movement for Europeans kinda kills the CTA doesn't it.

A European enters Ireland through Dublin hops on a bus to Belfast. Or stays for a week then goes on a flight to London. Won't there need to be checks somewhere?

We've been over this before. Freedom of movement has nothing to do with people getting on planes/boats/trains. It is the freedom to "move house" - i.e. to live in another country as if it were your own.

connemara man

CelticRambler wrote: »

We've been over this before. Freedom of movement has nothing to do with people getting on planes/boats/trains. It is the freedom to "move house" - i.e. to live in another country as if it were your own.

Thank you!

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

We've been over this before. Freedom of movement has nothing to do with people getting on planes/boats/trains. It is the freedom to "move house" - i.e. to live in another country as if it were your own.

Ironically, all the talk of ending the CTA is wiping the last vestige of FoM from the British public.

CelticRambler

Was just about to follow up on the living abroad aspect of FoM for students and had a thought: in the event of a crash-out Brexit, do we know if the NUI and other third-level institutions have declared unequivocally that NI-resident students (even those identifying solely as British :rolleyes: ) will pay EU/EEA rates it they attend college in the Republic? And what about ordinary Brits without the benefit of an EU passport - will they pay non-EU fees?

prawnsambo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Was just about to follow up on the living abroad aspect of FoM for students and had a thought: in the event of a crash-out Brexit, do we know if the NUI and other third-level institutions have declared unequivocally that NI-resident students (even those identifying solely as British :rolleyes: ) will pay EU/EEA rates it they attend college in the Republic? And what about ordinary Brits without the benefit of an EU passport - will they pay non-EU fees?

Well in the case of NUIG, NI students will still be able to avail of EU national fee structures post Brexit. Nothing about GB based students though. I would thnk not.

GM228

GM228 wrote: »

Just a reminder the judgement from the Outer House of the Court of Session is due very soon...

Just an update on this, the Outer House will deliver judgement at 12.45 and in an unusual move will also be releasing all arguments from the case - the UK Government had refused to release these last Friday, the Scottish courts are taking a leaf from the SCs openness policy.

GM228

Government has won round one of the Scottish case, appeal likely to be heard in the Inner House tomorrow when it also hears the Nob Off Case

prawnsambo

GM228 wrote: »

Government has won round one of the Scottish case, appeal likely to be heard in the Inner House tomorrow when it also hears the Nob Off Case

The court basically accepted the government position that they would send the letter required under the Benn Act.

NotToScale

prawnsambo wrote: »

The court basically accepted the government position that they would send the letter required under the Benn Act.

If he doesn't I assume the court could find him in contempt. It's not like Trump in the US. The PM isn't immune from court actions or prosecution.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Britain established an Empire on the seas with their Navy. And also diplomatically on the ground by the divide and conquer policy. They would pay off one Native American tribe to fight against another. They built opulent palaces in India to give the impression of power, even though their actual military capability was nothing more than a thin veneer of control.

That's what is taught in UK schools. It's certainly the mindset handed down in private schools there. The playbook they are working with is tried and tested. And it certainly did work in the past. But I don't see how it can work against the EU, or the US, or any other ally like Australia or South Africa when it comes down to the finer details.

I certainly hope they don't crash out of Europe for Ireland's sake. But it might be the only way for UK politicians to wake up to the reality of the situation.

prawnsambo

NotToScale wrote: »

If he doesn't I assume the court could find him in contempt. It's not like Trump in the US. The PM isn't immune from court actions or prosecution.

There's also the Nob Off petition which would allow the court to send the letter on the government's behalf. That's to be decided tomorrow. On the face of it, I don't think it should fail, because it's a kind of 'break glass in case of emergency' situation. It just sits there until it's needed and if it's not, it just withers away. We'll see soon enough.

Leroy42

The government 'won' because they accepted all the conditions from the start.

Johnson could have saved everyone a lot of time and money by simply stating that in the HoC.

The likes of the Express are already lauding it as a victory for Johnson when it is actually yet another example of a climb down and acceptance of reality beyond all his bluster.

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

The government 'won' because they accepted all the conditions from the start.

Johnson could have saved everyone a lot of time and money by simply stating that in the HoC.

The likes of the Express are already lauding it as a victory for Johnson when it is actually yet another example of a climb down and acceptance of reality beyond all his bluster.

It's Zeros to Heroes for judges now in the tabloid media I suspect. Must be very confusing to be a headline writer in those papers these days.

robinph

It's a bit of a strange one that case and was right to be dismissed as I think it is beyond the scope of a court. The court can't force you to do anything, any more than they can force you not to drive faster than 70mph on a motorway. It's illegal and there are consequences for not following the rules, but can't think of a situation where you are forced to do something legal.

You are penalised for doing something illegal, not forced to do something legal.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1181175133186269185

A Dub in Glasgo

robinph wrote: »

It's a bit of a strange one that case and was right to be dismissed as I think it is beyond the scope of a court. The court can't force you to do anything, any more than they can force you not to drive faster than 70mph on a motorway. It's illegal and there are consequences for not following the rules, but can't think of a situation where you are forced to do something legal.

You are penalised for doing something illegal, not forced to do something legal.

It is not beyond the scope of the court, the court accepted Johnsons written submission to the court that he will abide by the Benn act

If Johnson had written that he would rather be dead in a ditch than abide by the Benn act then I think the court would have given a different decision

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is not beyond the scope of the court, the court accepted Johnsons written submission to the court that he will abide by the Benn act

If Johnson had written that he would rather be dead in a ditch than abide by the Benn act then I think the court would have given a different decision

I still don't think they could do anything though until he's not done what the Benn Act requires of him. Until then he's done nothing wrong.

They could issue warnings about the consequences of not following the law, but they can't make him do something before he's had a chance to not do it.

A Dub in Glasgo

robinph wrote: »

I still don't think they could do anything though until he's not done what the Benn Act requires of him. Until then he's done nothing wrong.

They could issue warnings about the consequences of not following the law, but they can't make him do something before he's had a chance to not do it.

If won, the letter can be signed by an official of the court on behalf of the UK Government and sent to the EU. This would have full legal standing

The court case was not about physically forcing Johnson to sign and send the letter

robinph

The separate case about if the court can send the letter instead is more likely and makes more sense. That is merely going to be a test of who has the authority to send the letter and if the PM hasn't complied with the requirement of the letter being sent than can the court comply with the Benn Act on behalf of the PM.

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If won, the letter can be signed by an official of the court on behalf of the UK Government and sent to the EU. This would have full legal standing

The court case was not about physically forcing Johnson to sign and send the letter

I think that is a separate case being heard tomorrow about if the court can send the letter instead, this one was about if Johnson could be forced to do it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Yes it is, got my cases mixed up

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes it is, got my cases mixed up

I was thinking I'd got things the wrong way round as well for a bit. The news pages kept on changing each time I looked at them and had removed mention of the second case on one of the refreshes so thought I'd read/ remembered it wrong. Just found the tweet referring to the second case though:

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1181141797361389568

NotToScale

connemara man wrote: »

Stopping freedom of movement for Europeans kinda kills the CTA doesn't it.

A European enters Ireland through Dublin hops on a bus to Belfast. Or stays for a week then goes on a flight to London. Won't there need to be checks somewhere?

It's fairly unlikely that the UK will won't have a visa waiver for EU-26 visitors anyway. I would assume that usual 90 day thing will apply, much as it does to most places. So the question of stoping EU nationals entering entirely without out visas is unlikely to ever come up.

It'll be enforced by refusing to issue residency permits and registration for National Insurance numbers and all of those things becoming subject to UK residency permission. They've already done that for things like renting property and so on.

If the UK required visas for EU nationals just visiting, they're going to end up with a passport that's probably the most useless in the world as they'd be subject to visa requirements to enter the vast majority of the continent.

Kermit.de.frog

I think this shows the problem we have been facing for years.

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1181178822470725632

There seems to be this ongoing assumption that just because UK parliament might back something then that will make the EU back it.

They continuously ignore the fact that the EU has it's own aims regardless of what a UK parliament thinks.

They act like the other side doesn't exist all the time.

It's like the only discussion is an internal one for the UK - hence why BJ's proposal is described as a "deal" in the British press.

It isn't a deal.

NotToScale

They continuously negotiate with themselves and refer to what is a simply a proposal, and one that is highly unlikely to be accepted as a "deal".

There's a huge problem with believing one's one hype!

VinLieger

I wouldnt trust Johnson for a second to sign the letter, he is the embodiment of as mark francois proudly coined "Perfidious Albion on speed"


Honestly i don't think francois knows what that phrase means beyond others use it as an insult so he's trying to wear it as a badge of honour.

Tea Shock

The inner house making a ruling tomorrow that it should exercise its nobile officium would in a sense be a victory for Johnson. It's a get stay out of jail card. The UK gets an extension and he goes into a November / early December election saving face by getting to say "it wasn't me - give me a majority if you want thins thing done"!