Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

lawred2

PeadarCo wrote: »

If Irish goods are checked at EU ports Ireland is for all practical purposes out of the customs Union and single market. Ireland would have left the EU without any sort of internal vote and essentially forced by the UK. The economic consequences would be catastrophic. A hard border on land would be infinity better than that.

That can't happen without internal agreement. And Ireland will not agree to that.

PeadarCo

Strazdas wrote:

Such checks would be illegal under Single Market rules, so it's impossible to imagine they could happen.

And it would also be illegal for Ireland to have an open border with a country outside the EU. Ireland has a duty to protect the integrity of the Single market and customs Union. Northern Ireland is part of UK and will be for at least the next few years. And if there is a hard or no deal brexit NI will be outside the SM and CU. The one thing that has been consistent throughout the Brexit negotiations has been the refusal of the EU to let the UK cherry pick. Why would Ireland be any different.

You are also forgetting about Irish businesses many of them will not want to compete with illegal competitors. Remember the food and mouth outbreak in the early 2000's border controls were very quickly implemented to protect Irish agriculture.

Strazdas

PeadarCo wrote: »

And it would also be illegal for Ireland to have an open border with a country outside the EU. Ireland has a duty to protect the integrity of the Single market and customs Union. Northern Ireland is part of UK and will be for at least the next few years. And if there is a hard or no deal brexit NI will be outside the SM and CU. The one thing that has been consistent throughout the Brexit negotiations has been the refusal of the EU to let the UK cherry pick. Why would Ireland be any different.

You are also forgetting about Irish businesses many of them will not want to compete with illegal competitors. Remember the food and mouth outbreak in the early 2000's border controls were very quickly implemented to protect Irish agriculture.

Permanent checks between the Single Market and a full EU member would be an absolute non runner. Whatever the solution to the Brexit crisis / disaster, it won't be that one (the clue is in the name 'single market').

PeadarCo

Strazdas wrote:

Permanent checks between the Single Market and a full EU member would be an absolute non runner. Whatever the solution to the Brexit crisis / disaster, it won't be that one (the clue is in the name 'single market').

Why would they be? Ireland by having an open border with a country outside the EU would be no longer part of the same SM and CU as the rest of the EU. Goods otherwise illegal and or normally subject to tarrifs would be effectively legal and untarrified. Do you honestly thing the EU an Irish businesses would let Ireland completely disregard the rules of the SM and CU. This wishful thinking is no different to the thinking that has got the UK it's current mess ie the UK is special and the UK could get all the benefits of the EU without the costs(upholding the laws that underpin the SM and CU)

Ideally a hard border won't happen and in the event of hard or no deal brexit you would hope the UK would quickly reconsider. However if the UK and NI leaves the SM and CU a hard border will become a fact of life. This shouldn't be news. It's the reason there is such a big fuss over the backstop on both sides in the first place.

If what you are saying is true why bother at all with the backstop? You wouldn't need if Ireland could have an open border with NI outside the SM and CU and still be a full member of the EU.

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

What convention?

Edit: I presume you mean this


In which case I ask: when/where has that "convention" ever been applied in British politics?

This convention

The Leader of the Opposition is normally viewed as an alternative or shadow Prime Minister, and is appointed to the Privy Council. They lead an Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet which scrutinises the actions of the Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, as well as offer alternative policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom)

Strazdas

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why would they be? Ireland by having an open border with a country outside the EU would be no longer part of the same SM and CU as the rest of the EU. Goods otherwise illegal and or normally subject to tarrifs would be effectively legal and untarrified. Do you honestly thing the EU an Irish businesses would let Ireland completely disregard the rules of the SM and CU. This wishful thinking is no different to the thinking that has got the UK it's current mess ie the UK is special and the UK could get all the benefits of the EU without the costs(upholding the laws that underpin the SM and CU)

Ideally a hard border won't happen and in the event of hard or no deal brexit you would hope the UK would quickly reconsider. However if the UK and NI leaves the SM and CU a hard border will become a fact of life. This shouldn't be news. It's the reason there is such a big fuss over the backstop on both sides in the first place.

If what you are saying is true why bother at all with the backstop? You wouldn't need if Ireland could have an open border with NI outside the SM and CU and still be a full member of the EU.

The rules of the Single Market are about protecting its integrity and protecting its external borders. But there is no interpretation of SM rules that could allow or justify a full EU member being forced out of the SM and there having to be border checks ; that would be a quite perverse reading of the rules.

The problem here is solely Brexit UK. Ireland is entitled to defend its SM membership and the peace process.

Water John

Eamon Gilmore once told us he'd be the next Taoiseach. Jo Swinson floating a similar kite.

Nody

Strazdas wrote: »

The rules of the Single Market are about protecting its integrity and protecting its external borders. But there is no interpretation of SM rules that could allow or justify a full EU member being forced out of the SM and there having to be border checks ; that would be a quite perverse reading of the rules.

The problem here is solely Brexit UK. Ireland is entitled to defend its SM membership and the peace process.

Sorry but you're behaving like Boris here thinking Ireland can eat the cake and keep it at the same time. If Ireland don't defend the SM it will be pushed out one way or the other. That means if Ireland wants to be part of the SM it will have to defend it exactly like every other country inc. controlling it's borders; if it does not it fails in it's duties as a member of the SM to protect it. If you think Ireland will be given a free pass to NOT protect the NI border and have controls in the name of the peace process you're in for a rough wake up call and the EU commission will start an infringement process accordingly (as they have in the past when countries have failed to comply); failure to comply and well border in France or border at NI but no option for both borders to remain without checks.

SeaBreezes

Nody wrote: »

Sorry but you're behaving like Boris here thinking Ireland can eat the cake and keep it at the same time. If Ireland don't defend the SM it will be pushed out one way or the other. That means if Ireland wants to be part of the SM it will have to defend it exactly like every other country inc. controlling it's borders; if it does not it fails in it's duties as a member of the SM to protect it. If you think Ireland will be given a free pass to NOT protect the NI border and have controls in the name of the peace process you're in for a rough wake up call and the EU commission will start an infringement process accordingly (as they have in the past when countries have failed to comply); failure to comply and well border in France or border at NI but no option for both borders to remain without checks.

I think you misunderstand and you both are arguing the same point?

J Mysterio

Good article here in the Guardian:
Europe isn’t the enemy – demonising us is undermining Britain

'The Tories used to worry about being the nasty party. Now they’re making Britain a difficult country to like'

Infini

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Better to erect a border on a temporary basis than agree to one now and forever more. It's not an option seeing as staying in SM and CU is the priority.

If there's a Hard Brexit there will have to be a temporary hard border erected unfortunately. That being said it will be temporary because the damage that the Brits are going to cause to NI is going to be the straw that breaks the camels back and Reunfication becomes the dominant approach. All we do is wait it out till a Border Poll happens and then we not only have a way of removing the issue from this island but basically laughing at the DUP for causing the situation with their colossal amount of idiocy. We were fine with the way things were but they couldn't just leave things well enough alone and this is the cost of their stupidity.

It should be remembered that no matter what happens if there is a Hard Brexit it's insitgators will be the ones who ultimately end up paying the price as the EU wont abandon Ireland on this and Britain is the only one who caused it all.

fash

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Better to erect a border on a temporary basis than agree to one now and forever more. It's not an option seeing as staying in SM and CU is the priority.

Exactly: in addition any form of hard Brexit (which submitting to a "non-backstop" facilitates) in terms of economic impact isn't all that much better than a no deal Brexit in the medium/long term. So why give up on the backstop? There is a very limited economic benefit to doing so and a reasonable chance of causing a favourable soft Brexit by forcing it.

fash

Double post

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This convention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_(United_Kingdom)

Ah, right. So you're talking about the old two-party system, which has completely broken down and will most likely never feature in British politics again.

There's no point in demanding that someone who's part of the disruptive environment follow obsolete conventions that have prevented their party (and others) from legitimately representing that portion of the electorate that have voted for them.

Especially when the [united] Opposition is, in actual fact, governing the country.

prunudo

http://news.sky.com/story/britain-may-well-leave-eu-with-no-deal-says-health-secretary-matt-hancock-11822683

I wish the media would call them out on this, they are so disingenuous when they say that they want to get Brexit done by Oct 31st as if the following day its done and dusted. Regardless of whether they get a deal through or crash out, Brexit will not be done by Oct 31st but it will be the start of either a long or even longer negotiation period.

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah, right. So you're talking about the old two-party system, which has completely broken down and will most likely never feature in British politics again.

There's no point in demanding that someone who's part of the disruptive environment follow obsolete conventions that have prevented their party (and others) from legitimately representing that portion of the electorate that have voted for them.

Especially when the [united] Opposition is, in actual fact, governing the country.

Which is exactly the justification the Tories can use for flouting, tweaking, re-interpreting the conventions. And the entire Opposition benches scream blue bloody murder about it.

The LibDem don't actually represent that many voters. 12 constitutancies returned LD MPs in the last GE compared with LP's 268.

Labour is by far the largest opposition party by a country mile. Corbyn is the recognised leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council.

Are you saying the person who's party returned 12 MPs gets to flout the conventions because they don't like the leader of the party with 268 seats?

What could possibly go wrong with that as a precedent??

The fact is the UK Constitution is based on precedents and conventions. Boris is willfully flouting those - but so is Swinson.
I honestly do not understand why one doing it is 'bad' but the other is 'good'.

Professor Genius

Is anyone else just feeling worn out from it? I’ve been keenly following for months with twitter feed especially set up for Brexit news usual nightly tv is C4 news BBC news at 10 then Newsnight. Brexit Remainiacs and Choppers podcasts every week. I’m a political junkie and have been enjoying it but now I feel overloaded !

A Dub in Glasgo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ah, right. So you're talking about the old two-party system, which has completely broken down and will most likely never feature in British politics again.
.

The official opposition is Labour, in fact the Lib Dems are a distant 4th in the HoC. Your view may have validity after the next election but for now Labour are by far and away the biggest alternative to the Tories and the SNP are by far and away the biggest alternative to the Tories & Labour yet here we have the Lib Dems demanding to call the tune

CelticRambler

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The LibDem don't actually represent that many voters. 12 constitutancies returned LD MPs in the last GE compared with LP's 268.

Labour is by far the largest opposition party by a country mile. Corbyn is the recognised leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council.

Are you saying the person who's party returned 12 MPs gets to flout the conventions because they don't like the leader of the party with 268 seats?

No, I'm saying you're using the undemocratic nature of FPTP to justify criticism of the leader of a party that has been penalised by that system, and insisting that the Old Order must be respected, even when the two traditional parties are incapable of maintaining that same order on their own.

The convention to which you refer is obsolete, dead-in-the-water, no longer fit-for-purpose and not even relevant because there has been no VONC in the current PM; yet you're suggesting that lil' Miss Swinson should toe the line because she's nothing more than some provinical woman with notions who ought to know her place when playing with the Big Boys?

That's exactly the same attitude that the Brexiters have shown towards Ireland. I reckon if you trawled through Ireland's voting history with as much assiduity as you've applied to Swinson's, you'd find plenty of examples that would be best left under the carpet where they've been swept.

Charles Babbage

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which is exactly the justification the Tories can use for flouting, tweaking, re-interpreting the conventions. And the entire Opposition benches scream blue bloody murder about it.

The LibDem don't actually represent that many voters. 12 constitutancies returned LD MPs in the last GE compared with LP's 268.

Labour is by far the largest opposition party by a country mile. Corbyn is the recognised leader of the Opposition and a member of the Privy Council.

Are you saying the person who's party returned 12 MPs gets to flout the conventions because they don't like the leader of the party with 268 seats?

What could possibly go wrong with that as a precedent??

The fact is the UK Constitution is based on precedents and conventions. Boris is willfully flouting those - but so is Swinson.
I honestly do not understand why one doing it is 'bad' but the other is 'good'.

Although substantial, the ratio of votes between Labour and the Lib Dems is not as overwhelming as seats, because of the primitive UK voting system.

I think the Lib Dems are right, any government formed now should concentrate on Brexit and not on getting Labour into power. It isn't the same as forming a long term coalition for government.

Ideally they should be a Conservative like Ken Clarke in power and appoint Hammond as Chancellor, which would convey the "national" nature of the Brexit government.

Joe_ Public

Whether Corbyn can command the necessary support to become temporary PM is certainly debatable. In his position i'd certainly be thinking about taking the statesman approach and standing aside in favour of an alternative (not ken clarke though!), i think he could gain a lot by so doing, but can understand why it might be beyond him too. I think Swinson was wrong, though, to make the case against Corbyn in such strident terms, seemed like overplaying of a hand to me, and it came across to me as using the excuse of numbers for the real reason - her personal enmity for the labour leader. Whereas, in fact, if you could somehow convince the rebel tory MPs to abstain, the numbers would then appear to add up. NOt suggesting that's in itself easy, but it's not as impossible as the Lib Dems seem to make out i think.

A Shropshire Lad

Hearing today a few Brexiteers mention that 'all 27 members have to agree to the extension beyond October 31st'

Is there a possibility theres some pressure being put on individual countries behind the scenes to veto ?

gooch2k9

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Hearing today a few Brexiteers mention that 'all 27 members have to agree to the extension beyond October 31st'

Is there a possibility theres some pressure being put on individual countries behind the scenes to veto ?

Hasn't that been their tack for quite a while. Daniel Kawcynski tapping up his "friends" in the Polish government. Farage and Banks were visiting the Italian lads too.

Some way to "Take back control", getting other countries to make decisions for the UK. The very thing they accuse Brussels of.

Dyr

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, I'm saying you're using the undemocratic nature of FPTP to justify criticism of the leader of a party that has been penalised by that system, and insisting that the Old Order must be respected, even when the two traditional parties are incapable of maintaining that same order on their own.

The convention to which you refer is obsolete, dead-in-the-water, no longer fit-for-purpose and not even relevant because there has been no VONC in the current PM; yet you're suggesting that lil' Miss Swinson should toe the line because she's nothing more than some provinical woman with notions who ought to know her place when playing with the Big Boys?

That's exactly the same attitude that the Brexiters have shown towards Ireland. I reckon if you trawled through Ireland's voting history with as much assiduity as you've applied to Swinson's, you'd find plenty of examples that would be best left under the carpet where they've been swept.

Right so, the Brits are not going to be using FPTP in the next election? Wishing the reality of Britain's political system away when it suits is very much a Brexiteer pursuit

Fairly epic level of hubris in that post

Bannasidhe

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, I'm saying you're using the undemocratic nature of FPTP to justify criticism of the leader of a party that has been penalised by that system, and insisting that the Old Order must be respected, even when the two traditional parties are incapable of maintaining that same order on their own.

The convention to which you refer is obsolete, dead-in-the-water, no longer fit-for-purpose and not even relevant because there has been no VONC in the current PM; yet you're suggesting that lil' Miss Swinson should toe the line because she's nothing more than some provinical woman with notions who ought to know her place when playing with the Big Boys?

That's exactly the same attitude that the Brexiters have shown towards Ireland. I reckon if you trawled through Ireland's voting history with as much assiduity as you've applied to Swinson's, you'd find plenty of examples that would be best left under the carpet where they've been swept.

That is the system in the UK. It is the system everyone is expected to work within. The LibDems have been trying for decades to get PR introduced. There was even a referendum in 2011 and 67% chose to stay with the current system.
It favoured their Whig forerunners - whom the LibDems are eager to use to demonstrate their place at the heart of British politics - and they never sought to change the voting system until they lost ground to Labour.
So, it's fair to say that the Liberal Party had no issue with FPTP while it worked in their favour but now it's an issue.


It is how politics is done in the UK. They asked the public for permission to change the voting system 8 years ago. The electorate roundly said no.

The fact is the same rules apply to everyone, everyone is elected under the same system (the same system that saw Labour overtake the Liberals), everyone was expected to abide by the same conventions.

Those conventions do not currently suit the Tories so they flout them and the entire Opposition complains.

But, one very very small opposition party also wants to flout conventions and excuses are being made as to why, in this instance, it's acceptable.

Professor Moriarty

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Hearing today a few Brexiteers mention that 'all 27 members have to agree to the extension beyond October 31st'

Is there a possibility theres some pressure being put on individual countries behind the scenes to veto ?

Polish born Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski has repeatedly asked Poland to veto an extension.

brickster69

All the remainers running around like headless chickens now because they know Boris won't resign and the Benn - Dover bill has more holes in it than a block of gouda.

They know that if the Govt loses that vote, it could, under the FTPA, remain in office for 14 days, propose a vote of confidence, and, if it loses, a GE is automatically triggered. the speaker this week confirmed that an election could not be held before 31/10.

Water John

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/29/no-10-denies-claims-boris-johnson-squeezed-thigh-journalist-charlotte-edwardes

Johnson accused of groping women. Ah he really is in Trump's image.
Charlotte Edwards is a respected journalist.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/29/no-10-denies-claims-boris-johnson-squeezed-thigh-journalist-charlotte-edwardes

Johnson accused of groping women. Ah he really is in Trump's image.
Charlotte Edwards is a respected journalist.

I'd be surprised if anyone was surprised by this.

prawnsambo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But, one very very small opposition party also wants to flout conventions and excuses are being made as to why, in this instance, it's acceptable.

If Corbyn can get the support of all the MPs; who currently align against the government, then well and good. But if not, all this posturing about who's the big boy with the 'right' to head a GNU is just so much dust in the wind. And that's his job according to you and 'convention'. So let's see him do what's necessary to get that support...