Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

@Kermit, let's try to follow your logic through.

You say that Ireland will be out of the SM in 12 months.

How do you see that happening? Do you think Ireland will need to hold a ref on such a change? A Dail vote maybe? Or will it be a government only decision?

Given UK is still grappling with leaving the SM after spending 5 years and £9bn+ preparing, how will Ireland be ready?

And given the impact on trade, never mind our sovereignty which we will have handed complete control to the UK parliament, what do you see as the benefit to RoI or making such a decision?

Is it purely to reduce tensions in NI or do you see additional reasons?

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

@Kermit, let's try to follow your logic through.

You say that Ireland will be out of the SM in 12 months.

How do you see that happening? Do you think Ireland will need to hold a ref on such a change? A Dail vote maybe? Or will it be a government only decision?

Given UK is still grappling with leaving the SM after spending 5 years and £9bn+ preparing, how will Ireland be ready?

And given the impact on trade, never mind our sovereignty which we will have handed complete control to the UK parliament, what do you see as the benefit to RoI or making such a decision?

Is it purely to reduce tensions in NI or do you see additional reasons?

The hypothesis, I think, is that this won't be an IRL decision at all; the EU will impose checks on IRL/EU-26 trade because of the leakiness of the IRL/NI border, which in turn will be due to the UK's refusal or inability to operate the checks it should be operating on GB/NI trade.

6541

Does anyone know why The British government and Unionists call the agreement The Belfast Agreement and the Irish Government, The EU and America call it the Good Friday Agreement ?

fash

6541 wrote: »

Does anyone know why The British government and Unionists call the agreement The Belfast Agreement and the Irish Government, The EU and America call it the Good Friday Agreement ?

The UK/unionists didn't want the Catholic association of calling it the "Good Friday Agreement".

ancapailldorcha

fash wrote: »

The UK/unionists didn't want the Catholic association of calling it the "Good Friday Agreement".

This makes no sense. Good Friday is just as important in the Protestant and Presbyterian faiths as it presumably is in that of Roman Catholics.

CelticRambler

I think it's the association of the word "Good" with anything to do with Northern Ireland that most offends the DUP. Way too positive a sentiment for them to get behind.

Christy42

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You all want to believe Ireland will still be in the single market in 12 months time.

You all desperately want to believe that.

Despite your own denial of reality I have to say that is very unlikely.

The EU won't do what they should. That's unfortunate, it really is but no way will Ireland be in the single market this time next year.

That Politico article will be on reeling in the years in 20 years btw. Just saying.

This reminds me of the govt in 2009 - despite media forewarnings - "the IMF are not coming, don't be daft"

The last 5 years has seen the constant refrain of the EU will screw over Ireland for the sake of the UK any day now. It hasn't happened.

The UK has repeatedly bet on EU disunity and lost.

Peregrinus

I think it tended to be called the Belfast Agreement by the DUP and/or other unionists who rejected it, were uncomfortable with it or generally had reservations about it. Calling it the "Belfast Agreement" tends to implicitly place it as one of a long line of agreements dealing with the government of NI which are named after places in which they were negotiated, concluded or signed - the Sunningdale Agreement, the Stormont Agreement, the St. Andrew's Agreement, the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. Whereas giving it an atypical name, the Good Friday Agreement, tends to imply that it stands apart from that sequence; that it has some overarching, transcendent significance. And people who dislike the Agreement also dislike that implication.

Both names have been current since the Agreement was signed, but GFA definitely predominates, not least because it has a handy recognisable abbreviation as the GFA. "The BA" just doesn't work. The British government used to prefer "Good Friday Agreement" in press releases, political statements and the like, but over time began to use "Belfast Agreement" more frequently, in an attempt, I think\, to allow the DUP and other unionists feel a bit more comfortable that Westminster was on "their side".

Strictly speaking, the agreement is embodied in two documents, neither of which is formally named either the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement. One of the documents, executed by the UK and Irish governments, is " Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland", and the other, executed by the participants in the multi-party talks, is "Agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations". You can see why a more convenient short title is needed.

CelticRambler

I must admit to be being intrigued at how the Brexiters have managed to mess with Kermit's head, and to a certain extent he's right to stand there as a warning to us all. The referendum result came about, in part, because not enough sane and rational people took the Brexit evangelism seriously, dismissing it as something that was too stupid an idea to be bothered wasting time on.

There are, however, as I mentioned in my own earlier response to the politico article, plenty of useful idiots elected to the chambers of power in other EU states by voters who've been indoctrinated in the very same way as the Leavers in the UK, and it wouldn't be too great a stretch of the imagination to see one of my French neighbours, offended that Macron couldn't guarantee a vaccine appointment for his mother next Tuesday morning, to vote for a Frexit MEP because Facebook trolls told him it'd restore France's place on the world stage.

Unlikely as it is that the EU will isolate the Island of Ireland from the SM in the next 12 months, there are still just enough unnamed EU diplomats with a bone to pick over Ireland's corporate tax rate that we shouldn't entirely write off the idea that a temporary measure might unexpectedly get voted through as an easy way to score political points in other EU domestic political battles.

pixelburp

Peregrinus wrote: »

The hypothesis, I think, is that this won't be an IRL decision at all; the EU will impose checks on IRL/EU-26 trade because of the leakiness of the IRL/NI border, which in turn will be due to the UK's refusal or inability to operate the checks it should be operating on GB/NI trade.

Which, just typing that out, is such a break from even the most playful of speculated reality, it's ludicrous this has become the segue it has. All because of an unsubstantiated Op-Ed (the official refuting of which was apparently "panicked", like some Machiavellian plan has been rumbled by a diplomatic version of Deepthroat) and squinting really hard when reading a statement from the UK. Despite every step of Brexit demonstrating the EU's bona fides in terms of fighting for its internal market, and members. It's a binary situation and the other choice is the EU self-destructing its own systems to appease a 3rd Country. Right.

There's nothing ostensibly wrong with maintaining a healthy scepticism when it comes to the workings of the EU, but tipping over into full-blown destructive wish-fulfilment is just regressive. Wanting really hard that Ireland is forcibly ejected (or just blocked from) the SM is as realistic as believing the next monarch will be Boris Johnson himself, just because his government has been a bit slipshod.

Hard to take any user seriously who Sunk Costs hard into that kind of obvious inane fantasy.

PokeHerKing

While I think Kermit is certainly biased and looks for confirmation such as the politico article, there is only two options if the UK don't play ball.

Id say there's more then a few in the EU that would love if the Irish problem never existed but it does and if they're seen to cut us a drift they run the risk of unsettling the whole union. Either way we'll be voting on any such matters and 12 months is pure lunacy.

Maybe we should have a poll here, hard border or out of the SM?

pixelburp

PokeHerKing wrote: »

While I think Kermit is certainly biased and looks for confirmation such as the politico article, there is only two options if the UK don't play ball.

Id say there's more then a few in the EU that would love if the Irish problem never existed but it does and if they're seen to cut us a drift they run the risk of unsettling the whole union. Either way we'll be voting on any such matters and 12 months is pure lunacy.

Maybe we should have a poll here, hard border or out of the SM?

I don't doubt there are dozens of regional issues various EU "diplomats" would wish didn't exist - not like Poland and Hungary's recent attempts to become the ideological Alabamas of our continent hasn't made some rethink accession candidates - but that's the EU. Either it all works, or it doesn't - and throwing nations to the wolves to appease external - potentially belligerent - actors would destroy the EU within no time.

Sometimes it's easy to forget how utterly unprecedented in history the Union is; 27 nations cooperating as partners, the community formed from peaceful inclusion rather than conquest or national primacy. That can't work without a lot of compromise and acknowledgement that voluntary union only works if everything is an equal partner, protected by the rest. The EU might prefer certain outcomes and heavily hint towards compliance - but ejecting a member? It's fantasy stuff - beyond naive. Bordering on childish TBH.

Peregrinus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

While I think Kermit is certainly biased and looks for confirmation such as the politico article, there is only two options if the UK don't play ball.

Id say there's more then a few in the EU that would love if the Irish problem never existed but it does and if they're seen to cut us a drift they run the risk of unsettling the whole union. Either way we'll be voting on any such matters and 12 months is pure lunacy.

Maybe we should have a poll here, hard border or out of the SM?

We made the decision a hundred years ago that we would prioritise achieving sovereignty over ending partition, and we've stuck by it ever since. So I don't think we would allow the UK to force us out of the Single Market by threatening to impose a hard land border if we don't leave. We'd let them impose the hard border before we'd let them force us out of the Single Market.

Tactically, this is also the better choice. If the end result of the UK's malice, incompetence and lawbreaking is the reimposition of hard border in Ireland, with all that that entails, that will put the UK under enormous and continuing international pressure. The imposition of a hard border between Ireland and the EU-26 wouldn't have anything like the same impact globally. Neither outcome is acceptable to us, but if we are forced to pick one it should be the one that causes the UK the most problems, because that one will be easier to get changed subsequently. And that's the hard land border.

Christy42

PokeHerKing wrote: »

While I think Kermit is certainly biased and looks for confirmation such as the politico article, there is only two options if the UK don't play ball.

Id say there's more then a few in the EU that would love if the Irish problem never existed but it does and if they're seen to cut us a drift they run the risk of unsettling the whole union. Either way we'll be voting on any such matters and 12 months is pure lunacy.

Maybe we should have a poll here, hard border or out of the SM?

There are more options. If the UK doesn't follow their line in the agreement everything else should become null and void. Everything else in the agreement should be ditched by the EU. The UK does want the rest of the agreement and so will have to come back to the table before the single market issue over the border becomes an issue.

Again the UK has been saying that EU disharmony would happen any minute now for 5 years. It hasn't happened and I am tired of hearing the same argument back again.

Many in the EU don't care about the UK border. However they do care about what the EU does to a smaller member. Equally the larger ones don't want to see the UK get one over them.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it tended to be called the Belfast Agreement by the DUP and/or other unionists who rejected it, were uncomfortable with it or generally had reservations about it. Calling it the "Belfast Agreement" tends to implicitly place it as one of a long line of agreements dealing with the government of NI which are named after places in which they were negotiated, concluded or signed - the Sunningdale Agreement, the Stormont Agreement, the St. Andrew's Agreement, the Hillsborough Castle Agreement. Whereas giving it an atypical name, the Good Friday Agreement, tends to imply that it stands apart from that sequence; that it has some overarching, transcendent significance. And people who dislike the Agreement also dislike that implication.

Both names have been current since the Agreement was signed, but GFA definitely predominates, not least because it has a handy recognisable abbreviation as the GFA. "The BA" just doesn't work. The British government used to prefer "Good Friday Agreement" in press releases, political statements and the like, but over time began to use "Belfast Agreement" more frequently, in an attempt, I think\, to allow the DUP and other unionists feel a bit more comfortable that Westminster was on "their side".

Strictly speaking, the agreement is embodied in two documents, neither of which is formally named either the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement. One of the documents, executed by the UK and Irish governments, is " Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland", and the other, executed by the participants in the multi-party talks, is "Agreement reached in the multi-party negotiations". You can see why a more convenient short title is needed.

I was always disappointed that the GFA did not define all the terms to be used, including the name of the agreement itself.

I am always annoyed by English British people referring to Southern Ireland, or Unionists referring to 'the Free State' or 'Ulster' or 'the six counties'.

Could they not have a section defining the words to be used when describing all the entities involved in 'the troubles'. Ireland nor Eire and not Southern Ireland. Northern Ireland not Ulster and not the Six Counties.

Plus all the other useful but mis-used mis-names. The Dublin Government is a good example.

If only.

pixelburp

Are there still Unionists who refer to the Republic as the "Free State"? I could just about see the rationale in doing so back during the Troubles, when those who lived during Partition were still alive, but nowadays? That seems petty, even for hardline Unionism. Unless used intentionally as a derogatory term, and there's no accounting for vulgarity anyway.

(apologies for the segue)

ancapailldorcha

pixelburp wrote: »

Are there still Unionists who refer to the Republic as the "Free State"? I could just about see the rationale in doing so back during the Troubles, when those who lived during Partition were still alive, but nowadays? That seems petty, even for hardline Unionism. Unless used intentionally as a derogatory term, and there's no accounting for vulgarity anyway.

(apologies for the segue)

The best proxy I can muster offhand is when one of the characters in that awful NI miniseries, Bloodlands used the term "Free State" to refer to the Republic.

Leonard Hofstadter

Don't they usually call it the 'Republic of Ireland'?

Sam Russell

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Don't they usually call it the 'Republic of Ireland'?

That as well.

Country name is usually taken from the name of the country's soccer team or by the name printed on their postage stamps. For us it means we are either Eire or the Republic of Ireland. France, although a republic as we are, is always referred to as France, but that is what they have on their stamps and it is what they call their soccer team.

The UK has neither a soccer team to be called after, nor a name on their stamps - curious situation. This lack of a unified identity might be the reason they have to go 'Global Britain' to get some world-wide recognition. Perhaps that might be the root cause of Brexit.

schmoo2k

CelticRambler wrote: »

I must admit to be being intrigued at how the Brexiters have managed to mess with Kermit's head, and to a certain extent he's right to stand there as a warning to us all. The referendum result came about, in part, because not enough sane and rational people took the Brexit evangelism seriously, dismissing it as something that was too stupid an idea to be bothered wasting time on.

There are, however, as I mentioned in my own earlier response to the politico article, plenty of useful idiots elected to the chambers of power in other EU states by voters who've been indoctrinated in the very same way as the Leavers in the UK, and it wouldn't be too great a stretch of the imagination to see one of my French neighbours, offended that Macron couldn't guarantee a vaccine appointment for his mother next Tuesday morning, to vote for a Frexit MEP because Facebook trolls told him it'd restore France's place on the world stage.

Unlikely as it is that the EU will isolate the Island of Ireland from the SM in the next 12 months, there are still just enough unnamed EU diplomats with a bone to pick over Ireland's corporate tax rate that we shouldn't entirely write off the idea that a temporary measure might unexpectedly get voted through as an easy way to score political points in other EU domestic political battles.

One common trait with extremists (left or right) that doesn't get mentioned enough, is the "playing devils advocate" role - here the protagonist sates their "extreme" view not because they 100% agree with it, but rather because they know it will offend (or get a rise out of) the folks with the opposing point of view.

There was one brave Brexiter on the James O'Brien show, who said he voted Brexit to piss off liberal / woke folks like James...

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK has neither a soccer team to be called after, nor a name on their stamps - curious situation.

The UK was the first country in the world to issue postage stamps, they didn't need to add the country name as at the time they were the only ones in the world, when other countries adopted them there was a need to add their country names to distinguish them from the UK stamps.

awec

pixelburp wrote: »

Are there still Unionists who refer to the Republic as the "Free State"? I could just about see the rationale in doing so back during the Troubles, when those who lived during Partition were still alive, but nowadays? That seems petty, even for hardline Unionism. Unless used intentionally as a derogatory term, and there's no accounting for vulgarity anyway.

(apologies for the segue)

It's not common but I've heard free state / free staters being used, but in many cases I think it's just a habit rather than derogatory thing.

Kind of like how everyone here calls NI "the north".

Seth Brundle

I've dealt with plenty of nationalists over the years who also use the term "Free State" - its not something id worry about tbh.

Strazdas

schmoo2k wrote: »

One common trait with extremists (left or right) that doesn't get mentioned enough, is the "playing devils advocate" role - here the protagonist sates their "extreme" view not because they 100% agree with it, but rather because they know it will offend (or get a rise out of) the folks with the opposing point of view.

There was one brave Brexiter on the James O'Brien show, who said he voted Brexit to piss off liberal / woke folks like James...

Not sure if he was even telling the truth to James, but that is a not uncommon viewpoint in England in 2021 and partly explains the popularity of Johnson and Brexit.

I'm a bit taken aback at the number of "culture war" stories appearing in their media. Every day, the Daily Mail runs about 10 or 15 such articles - 'woke' vs conservatives, cancel culture, flags and symbols, taking a knee etc. It's quite relentless (and seems totally deliberate and aimed at dividing).

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK was the first country in the world to issue postage stamps, they didn't need to add the country name as at the time they were the only ones in the world, when other countries adopted them there was a need to add their country names to distinguish them from the UK stamps.

I am aware of that. They must have been the first country confused at the name they should be called as well. England, British Empire, Britannia, The UK, The United Kingdom, Great Britain, and - the list goes on. No wonder the Scots want out.

West Germany did not take long to drop the 'West'. The USSR did not take long to morph into 'the Russian Federation' and then 'Russia'.

Why have they taken so long to decide what they would like to be called?

I am convinced the lack of a unified identity is what is really behind Brexit.

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

Not sure if he was even telling the truth to James, but that is a not uncommon viewpoint in England in 2021 and partly explains the popularity of Johnson and Brexit.

I'm a bit taken aback at the number of "culture war" stories appearing in their media. Every day, the Daily Mail runs about 10 or 15 such articles - 'woke' vs conservatives, cancel culture, flags and symbols, taking a knee etc. It's quite relentless (and seems totally deliberate and aimed at dividing).

That sounds like the hurtful insult when the victim takes issue, it then turns into 'it was only meant as a joke!' explanation.

Yea, I'm sure that 52% of the population were not all fooled into voting for Brexit just to make the 'woke' folk feel stupid or got at. They may have been fooled but not in that particular direction.

20silkcut

Why is there no mention of putting the protocol to a referendum. Is there a voting clause on the NIP after 5 years anyway.
Too divisive?
Would it be a De facto border poll?
Brexit was defeated in NI anyway.

L1011

Sam Russell wrote: »

I was always disappointed that the GFA did not define all the terms to be used, including the name of the agreement itself.

I am always annoyed by English British people referring to Southern Ireland, or Unionists referring to 'the Free State' or 'Ulster' or 'the six counties'.

Could they not have a section defining the words to be used when describing all the entities involved in 'the troubles'. Ireland nor Eire and not Southern Ireland. Northern Ireland not Ulster and not the Six Counties.

Plus all the other useful but mis-used mis-names. The Dublin Government is a good example.

If only.

"the six counties" is a nationalist term, not a unionist one.

Strazdas

20silkcut wrote: »

Why is there no mention of putting the protocol to a referendum. Is there a voting clause on the NIP after 5 years anyway.
Too divisive?
Would it be a De facto border poll?
Brexit was defeated in NI anyway.

Don't forget the Protocol was actually one of the main planks of the Tory manifesto ; "Get Brexit done", "Oven ready deal".

So it's really something else to win a general election with it and then claim it was a bad thing all along.

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

"the six counties" is a nationalist term, not a unionist one.

Well, I was not inclined to blame any group for any of the random names - just that the GFA should have defined the names to be used in future for both officialdom and the media.

Bank of England notes are not legal tender in Scotland or NI, only the Queen's shilling. Who would have thought it? They really do have an identity problem.