Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

An Ciarraioch

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

A referendum seems a terrible idea to me. We know (from previous referenda here and from Brexit) that lies take over, that there will be huge outside influence and that many people will vote on what they think the issue is rather than facts.

I could see it easily being lost by a combination of the unionist side saying it's really a vote on a UI, and the nationalist side (possibly deliberately) not running an effective campaign that gets the vote out.

Obviously, the Irish government would have to give a guarantee beforehand that if the customs referendum passed, the constitutional status would be frozen for an agreed period (say 10-15 years).

Sam Russell

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Obviously, the Irish government would have to give a guarantee beforehand that if the customs referendum passed, the constitutional status would be frozen for an agreed period (say 10-15 years).

There is no way any Irish Gov could give such a guarantee - it is not part of the GFA so it cannot give it. The constitutional situation can only be changed by referendums conducted on both sides of the border, and carried by simple majorities in both jurisdictions. The referendum is triggered by the SoS for NI being of the opinion that it would be carried (however that is decided).

Enzokk

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

People saying this double majority vote is more or less as good as the backstop because the nationalist side will never vote to get rid of it have very, very short memories. A few years ago, we were saying Trump would never get the republican nomination, then we were saying he would never win the presidency, then we were saying the UK will never vote to leave the UK. Sometimes the things you think will never happen, actually happen.

But correct me if I am wrong the purpose of SF is for a United Ireland. By voting for a border and cutting off the access to Ireland would run contrary to their stated aim and purpose as a political party.

It would take some devious genius level of thinking of SF voting against the backstop and then ruining the NI economy to get their aim of a United Ireland. That would just not work in the real world.

ToBeFrank123

Enzokk wrote: »

But correct me if I am wrong the purpose of SF is for a United Ireland. By voting for a border and cutting off the access to Ireland would run contrary to their stated aim and purpose as a political party.

It would take some devious genius level of thinking of SF voting against the backstop and then ruining the NI economy to get their aim of a United Ireland. That would just not work in the real world.

Unfortunately this school of thought has gained traction both within Sinn Fein and elsewhere. People hoping the NI economy will be so badly ruined that northerners in the majority would look to unite with the south. By that stage our own economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unfortunately this school of thought has gained traction both within Sinn Fein and elsewhere. People hoping the NI economy will be so badly ruined that northerners in the majority would look to unite with the south. By that stage our own economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North.

As a 'school of thought' it's only been expressed in terms of the DUP actively shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for such a scenario. It takes some mental gymnastics to suggest that nationalists and/or people in Ireland would actively push such an option for that purpose.

Nobody suggests that we wouldn't have economic issues with a UI. But it's not as expensive as you are making out. David McWilliams looked into this in some depth a while ago. Possibly in the FT, but not 100% sure. As for the damage to our economy; it's going to affect growth, not start a recession.

Stop moaning ffs

prawnsambo wrote: »

As a 'school of thought' it's only been expressed in terms of the DUP actively shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for such a scenario. It takes some mental gymnastics to suggest that nationalists and/or people in Ireland would actively push such an option for that purpose.

Nobody suggests that we wouldn't have economic issues with a UI. But it's not as expensive as you are making out. David McWilliams looked into this in some depth a while ago. Possibly in the FT, but not 100% sure. As for the damage to our economy; it's going to affect growth, not start a recession.

Some helpful links on that.

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/business/united-irish-economy-could-deliver-boost-of-36bn-388959.html#click=https://t.co/S8QBe9KiBt

https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/implementationofthegoodfridayagreement/jcigfa2016/brexit-and-the-future-of-ireland.pdf

https://eamonnmallie.com/2017/08/new-ireland-presents-better-opportunities-personal-perspective-gerry-carlile/

http://www.paulgosling.net/2018/02/the-economic-impact-of-an-all-island-economy-a-draft-report-for-consultation/

https://t.co/5D0J0qYnj3?amp=1

ToBeFrank123

prawnsambo wrote: »

As a 'school of thought' it's only been expressed in terms of the DUP actively shooting themselves in the foot by pushing for such a scenario. It takes some mental gymnastics to suggest that nationalists and/or people in Ireland would actively push such an option for that purpose.

Nobody suggests that we wouldn't have economic issues with a UI. But it's not as expensive as you are making out. David McWilliams looked into this in some depth a while ago. Possibly in the FT, but not 100% sure. As for the damage to our economy; it's going to affect growth, not start a recession.

I've heard figures of 10-15 billion a year to pay for it. Hard enough at the best of times, but very difficult if we are also struggling economically. Most if not all of that 10-15 billion would have to be borrowed annually for years to come.

Sinn Fein will hopefully support a backstop if it comes to a vote.

trellheim

rte reporting on it now

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1181909587143864321

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Unfortunately this school of thought has gained traction both within Sinn Fein and elsewhere. People hoping the NI economy will be so badly ruined that northerners in the majority would look to unite with the south. By that stage our own economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North.

Why would the Irish economy be in poor shape?

Kermit.de.frog

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I've heard figures of 10-15 billion a year to pay for it.

When you go north does it look like the type of place getting that sort of subsidy?

If it is it sure doesn't look like it!

Stop moaning ffs

Leo just addressed it in the Dáil. I wonder

https://twitter.com/sicarswell/status/1181907467627880454?s=21

ToBeFrank123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Why would the Irish economy be in poor shape?

You are unlikely to accept my opinion, but hopefully you accept the opinion of the Central Bank who have studied it in detail.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/central-bank-warns-of-110000-fewer-jobs-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit-931774.html

But he said the impact of a disorderly, no-deal scenario would “have very severe and immediate disruptive effects with consequences for almost all areas of economic activity”.
“Compared to a situation where the UK remains a EU member, our estimates suggest that a disorderly Brexit would result in a substantial and permanent loss of output,” he told an Oireachtas committee.
Mr Cassidy added: “We think that the disorderly, no-deal scenario could knock about four percentage points off economic growth in the first year alone.

6%
The percentage it is estimated output would be lowered by compared to a no-deal scenario over the medium-term
Central Bank

“To put that in context, we’re expecting economic growth of 4.25% this year, 3.5% next year.
“So we would still expect some modest positive growth in a no-deal scenario but essentially it would knock almost all of the growth off in the first couple of years.”
Over the medium-term, Mr Cassidy said he believed output would be lowered by over 6% compared to a no-deal scenario.
“We think there would be 110,000 fewer jobs compared to a situation where there had been no Brexit, so the effects are immediate,” he concluded.

prawnsambo

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I've heard figures of 10-15 billion a year to pay for it. Hard enough at the best of times, but very difficult if we are also struggling economically. Most if not all of that 10-15 billion would have to be borrowed annually for years to come.

Sinn Fein will hopefully support a backstop if it comes to a vote.

The UK pay about £9-10 billion a year to Ni in the form of subventions, decentralised administrative functions and other grants. You'd need to look at McWilliams' article for the actual breakdown, but he contends that almost half of that would be unnecessary in a UI situation.

MrMusician18

Enzokk wrote: »

But correct me if I am wrong the purpose of SF is for a United Ireland. By voting for a border and cutting off the access to Ireland would run contrary to their stated aim and purpose as a political party.

It would take some devious genius level of thinking of SF voting against the backstop and then ruining the NI economy to get their aim of a United Ireland. That would just not work in the real world.

Another problem with the proposal is that if Stormont doesn't exist and then the decision is transferred to Westminster. You could see a UK government being propped up by unionists forcing the issue one way.

Remember, there is only one rule really in the UK, Parliament is sovereign.

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Another problem with the proposal is that if Stormont doesn't exist and then the decision is transferred to Westminster. You could see a UK government being propped up by unionists forcing the issue one way.

Remember, there is only one rule really in the UK, Parliament is sovereign.

I doubt that possibility would pass anyone by if it came down to drawing up a legal text to legislate for it. A backstop for the backstop would have to be envisaged in the event that Stormont was not sitting.

Stop moaning ffs

prawnsambo wrote: »

The UK pay about £9-10 billion a year to Ni in the form of subventions, decentralised administrative functions and other grants. You'd need to look at McWilliams' article for the actual breakdown, but he contends that almost half of that would be unnecessary in a UI situation.

Here’s the McWilliams article you’re referring to. He’s spoken about it on is podcast too and says it would be a massive boost for the all island economy in a unified scenario. Not overnight but soon After

https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d

MrMusician18

prawnsambo wrote: »

I doubt that possibility would pass anyone by if it came down to drawing up a legal text to legislate for it. A backstop for the backstop would have to be envisaged in the event that Stormont was not sitting.

The alternative would be a regional referendum on it, which would no doubt be turned into a sectarian headcount/proxy unity referendum.

Of course there would be rather complex ways to ballot to ensure majorities in both communities...

quokula

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The alternative would be a regional referendum on it, which would no doubt be turned into a sectarian headcount/proxy unity referendum.

Not sure it would as the majority of moderate unionists are in favour of the backstop as far as I'm aware - pretty much every trade and industrial body up there have been out supporting it.

Seth Brundle

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

You are unlikely to accept my opinion, but hopefully you accept the opinion of the Central Bank who have studied it in detail.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/central-bank-warns-of-110000-fewer-jobs-in-event-of-no-deal-brexit-931774.html

In fairness, there's a massive difference between the CB predicting a reduction in growth (which will still remain positive growth!) and you saying that our "economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North"

fash

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Leo just addressed it in the Dáil. I wonder

https://twitter.com/sicarswell/status/1181907467627880454?s=21

I think it is a good idea - get bogged down in the details while undermining (or allowing self-undermining of) UK position (DUP veto) - harder for UK to claim EU responsible for no deal when problems indicated and front and centre

ToBeFrank123

quokula wrote: »

Not sure it would as the majority of moderate unionists are in favour of the backstop as far as I'm aware - pretty much every trade and industrial body up there have been out supporting it.

The DUP leadership of Foster and Dodds are out of step with many of their supporters such as farmers, particularly those who trade heavily with the south.

I'm sure there are others equally who trade heavily with the south such as those selling cars to southern customers or just small businesses on the border who depend on southern customers.

The double majority seems to be a non runner from the DUP point of view.

It would be great to see Labour, Tories, ERG, etc row in behind this proposed compromise. But we know from experience some of these guys use DUP opposition as a reason to oppose anything.

It will be interesting to see what someone like Rees Mogg says about it as he is an influential figure who can make or break a deal.

Seth Brundle

Looks like the UK's simplified process for importing goods is in place...

https://twitter.com/ballantine70/status/1181864495569920000

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

Not sure it would as the majority of moderate unionists are in favour of the backstop as far as I'm aware - pretty much every trade and industrial body up there have been out supporting it.

There was a tweet going around at the time that Johnson's proposal was published with a list of all those supporting the idea. Out of approximately a dozen, there was only one. The DUP.

GM228

An important passage from today's judgement from the Inner House:-

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=7a2e72a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

The situation remains fluid. What is known is that, over the next two weeks, circumstances will inevitably change. If 19 October comes and goes without either of the two conditions in the 2019 Act having been satisfied and in the absence of the letter which the Prime Minister would then be required to send, the petitioners would be entitled to return to court and seek an order ordaining the PM to comply with the terms of the 2019 Act within a prescribed, and possibly very short, period. It is only once that period has expired without the order being obtempered that the court would consider authorising an official to sign the letter which the PM may have failed to do.

The court has essentially stated that providing the need arises if Johnson does not send an extension letter it will issue an order that he must do so within a small time frame and if he still refuses to do so it will consider using the nobile officium power to authorise someone else to do so. The Outer House judgement from Monday is effectively null and void.

gooch2k9

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Looks like the UK's simplified process for importing goods is in place...

https://twitter.com/ballantine70/status/1181864495569920000

It's weird seeing "Brexit" on actual government documents like that. You'd expect "...for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union." I suppose that's where we are now though!


I've been hearing the ads on TV/radio about preparing for Brexit up here(NI) and only just now had a look on that website. It's useless, and how could they know what the craic will be when it changes week to week.

ToBeFrank123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness, there's a massive difference between the CB predicting a reduction in growth (which will still remain positive growth!) and you saying that our "economy wouldn't be in great shape and hardly able to cope with the extra cost of subsidising the North"

You are appealing to the wrong person. You need to bring this to the attention of Arlene Foster and Northern Unionists and convince them.

Hurrache

Alliance also come out against the rumoured double majority.

“Alliance’s preference is for Northern Ireland and indeed the wider UK to remain with the EU. However, if Brexit has to happen, Northern Ireland needs to have special arrangements to protect our unique circumstances.

“But while these reports are not necessarily true, effectively giving a veto to either unionists or nationalists over that is unacceptable. Any issues of consent by the Assembly will be inherently loaded, based upon what is the assigned status quo and turned into a de facto debate on the constitutional question, instead of addressing the point

https://www.allianceparty.org/backstop_double_majority_veto_would_only_add_divisions_to_fragile_institutions_says_farry

ToBeFrank123

Cannot trust MLAs or parties in the Assembly. They can barely agree on the day of the week.

briany

gooch2k9 wrote: »

It's weird seeing "Brexit" on actual government documents like that. You'd expect "...for the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union." I suppose that's where we are now though!

It is interesting that Brexit has pretty much become the term right up to the highest levels of officialdom. Interesting because you normally wouldn't expect politicians and legal documents to be parroting a clever portmanteau.

NIMAN

Re: medicine supply to Ireland.

I have heard regularly that we would suffer a medicine supply problem in the event of a NDB.

Why could we not just get our supply through Europe instead?

Are all the drugs made in the UK?