Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The immediate question is



Didn't Ireland sign up to it as well?

Why doesn't the necessity of maintaining an open border seem to apply to Ireland?

Where does it say in the agreement that an open border is a sine qua non?

Ireland did sign up to it and that is exactly the reason Ireland is not feckin stupid enough to consider leaving the EU

Seth Brundle

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I don't remember the UK doing so either as Parliament has not made an agreement.

As it stands the UK has less than two months to decide if it wants to adhere to the GFA or, as is the current situation, turn their back on it completely.
The UK parliament has made an agreement - to detach itself from the EU (without any thought of the implications)

bobmalooka

Seth Brundle wrote: »

downcow wrote: »

And I guess you reckon your position is moderate.
In all honesty. The two sides in this now remind me of the worst accesses of intrasagence during the troubles. Two sides locked in thinking they are the reasonable ones and the others are the problem.
I at least can recognise how I have got sucked in but I fear many of you don’t see how you have your heels stuck in. It’s like drumcree or the hunger strikes all over again. Each side now thinks they are the lambs and the others are the lions. And you know where both drumcree and the hunger strikes ended up. Rationality is fast disappearing out the window. We might pick up the pieces in ten years.

I strongly suspect that your understanding of both Drumcree and the hunger strikes is massively inaccurate!
Either way, they're inappropriate comparisons for this debate unless you wish to discuss British intransigence.

A frightening insight into how some people have decided to frame the discussion.
2 years ago NI had the ability to be both UK and EU if special status was followed through on. A real chance for NI to be the stand out option for inward investment, a real chance to go from economic life support to prosperity.

Zealots gave conspired to turn this into identity politics.

It’s unforgivable

Professor Moriarty

Seth Brundle wrote: »

As it stands the UK has less than two months to decide if it wants to adhere to the GFA or, as is the current situation, turn their back on it completely.
The UK parliament has made an agreement - to detach itself from the EU (without any thought of the implications)

The UK is also firmly committed to no hard border according to May. Cognitive dissonance is a terrible thing.

ThePanjandrum

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Ireland did sign up to it and that is exactly the reason Ireland is not feckin stupid enough to consider leaving the EU

So whatever the EU decides to do, no matter how it may hurt your country, you accept that there's nothing you can do about it.

That sounds like a pretty abusive relationship.

Quin_Dub

downcow wrote: »

Help me here. The bit I don’t get is that many on here seem to be very concerned about a hard border yet you won’t swallow your pride to suggest that you may have some responsibility in finding a solution. All the stuff you say about me I fairly much feel about southerners who won’t countenance any renegotiation of the backstop. Even though it is that very renegotiation that could prevent a hard border.
You are playing a very risky game

Fundamentally, this all comes down to Trust.


On the one side you have HMGOV who say they don't want a Hard border and who say that they have "alternative arrangements" that will ensure that a hard border does not occur.

On the other side you have the EU which also says that they don't want a Hard border and that they will only enforce the backstop "unless and until" the aforementioned "alternative arrangements" are in place.

So , who do you trust?

Do you trust HMGOV , who negotiated a deal via their authorised negotiation team (if the rest of parliament weren't happy with that approach then the time to complain about it was 18 months ago , not weeks and months after the deal was agreed by both sides) and who have now gone back on that deal?

Do you trust HMGOV who have shifted and changed their stance multiple times over the last two years - No Red Lines , Red Lines , Stay in the SM/CU , Leave the SM/CU etc. etc. etc.

Do you Trust HMGOV who still have not expanded on what the "alternative arrangements" are.. They literally have provided no other details beyond the two words - "alternative arrangements".

Or

Do you trust the EU , that negotiated a deal in good faith and secured the approval of 27 member states before they accepted it, and who have been utterly unwavering in their view-point and stance on what they want and the criteria therein.

Of the two options above , who is the more likely to keep their commitments ??

ThePanjandrum

Seth Brundle wrote: »

As it stands the UK has less than two months to decide if it wants to adhere to the GFA or, as is the current situation, turn their back on it completely.
The UK parliament has made an agreement - to detach itself from the EU (without any thought of the implications)

Quote to me the articles that the UK is turning its back on.

VinLieger

"ThePanjandrum wrote: »

That sounds like a pretty abusive relationship.

Like northern ireland and scotland being dragged out of the eu against their will?

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Quote to me the articles that the UK is turning its back on.

Of course you're right. The GFA does not talk about borders specifically apart from a few references to security. However, nobody apart from a few ERG rightwingers would take what you are saying seriously.

johnnyskeleton

Hurrache wrote: »

He's been called out on his claims to be initially neutral, and now a moderate, numerous times and by yet persists.

Mod note:

Play the ball not the man. If you cant do that, refrain from posting.

downcow wrote: »

And I guess you reckon your position is moderate.
In all honesty. The two sides in this now remind me of the worst accesses of intrasagence during the troubles. Two sides locked in thinking they are the reasonable ones and the others are the problem.
I at least can recognise how I have got sucked in but I fear many of you don’t see how you have your heels stuck in. It’s like drumcree or the hunger strikes all over again. Each side now thinks they are the lambs and the others are the lions. And you know where both drumcree and the hunger strikes ended up. Rationality is fast disappearing out the window. We might pick up the pieces in ten years.

Mod note:

You were warned about this kind of nonsense posting before. Consider this your last chance. If you want to discuss brexit, discuss brexit. Dont make fatuous comparions between the negotiations and the hunger strikers. If youre only out to cause annoyance to other posters, then dont post here. If you are genuinely trying to discuss the issues, then you need to do so in a serious manner and engage with the points other people make.

ThePanjandrum

VinLieger wrote: »

Like northern ireland and scotland being dragged out of the eu against their will?

No, that's because the Referendum was a UK wide vote - as they understood - and any of the constituent countries in the UK can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, unlike Catalonia.

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Like northern ireland and scotland being dragged out of the eu against their will?

Interestingly, the Remain vote in Scotland has gone from 62% in 2016 to 70% today.

Inquitus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, the Remain vote in Scotland has gone from 62% in 2016 to 70% today.

Aye if there were a 2nd referendum tomorrow it seems remain would win fairly handily, at least as far as current polling goes.

Professor Moriarty

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that's because the Referendum was a UK wide vote - as they understood - and any of the constituent countries in the UK can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, unlike Catalonia.

Interestingly, a recent UK wide poll shows that 56% of voters would now vote Remain with just 44% voting Leave.

VinLieger

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that's because the Referendum was a UK wide vote - as they understood - and any of the constituent countries in the UK can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, unlike Catalonia.

Except they can't because a referendum has to first be granted by westminster.

I notice the UK didnt have to ask permission to hold their referendum....

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Except they can't because a referendum has to first be granted by westminster.

I notice the UK didnt have to ask permission to hold their referendum....

It's very obvious that the will of the people has changed greatly. The will of the people should be respected and Westminster should hold another referendum. It's what a democracy would do.

briany

First Up wrote: »

Compromise on what? This is about maintaining an open border, which everyone says they want and to which the UK has signed up in an international agreement.

Is that what she is asking the EU and everyone else to compromise?

There are a couple of things that are a bit fuzzy, here, leaving just enough room for May to wiggle. One is that the backstop to which the UK agreed in Dec 2017 was agreed 'in principle'. This apparently gives her leeway to argue what the finer points of that backstop would look like, e.g. the time limit (otherwise the EU wouldn't even bother humouring her proposals).

Secondly, I haven't seen mention of a clause in the GFA that says a hard border must be avoided. I've seen people say that a hard border must be avoided in order to protect the GFA, though, which I would agree with, but if it's not a legal declaration then there is again wiggle room.

Honestly, EU negotiators would have an easier time catching Greased Up Deaf Guy than really nailing down the UK on these points.

bobmalooka

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

As it stands the UK has less than two months to decide if it wants to adhere to the GFA or, as is the current situation, turn their back on it completely.
The UK parliament has made an agreement - to detach itself from the EU (without any thought of the implications)

Quote to me the articles that the UK is turning its back on.

Strand 2 is implicitly reliant on EU co-existence membership, further to this there are direct references to north-south cooperation in EU policy implementation.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's very obvious that the will of the people has changed greatly. The will of the people should be respected and Westminster should hold another referendum. It's what a democracy would do.

Pff you cant ask people if theyve changed their minds after only three years.

That would be like having two general elections in less than 3 years which would be madness.... Such a thing would never happen.

Professor Moriarty

briany wrote: »

There are a couple of things that are a bit fuzzy, here, leaving just enough room for May to wiggle. One is that the backstop to which the UK agreed in Dec 2017 was agreed 'in principle'. This apparently gives her leeway to argue what the finer points of that backstop would look like, e.g. the time limit (otherwise the EU wouldn't even bother humouring her proposals).

Secondly, I haven't seen mention of a clause in the GFA that says a hard border must be avoided. I've seen people say that a hard border must be avoided in order to protect the GFA, though, which I would agree with, but if it's not a legal declaration then there is again wiggle room.

Honestly, EU negotiators would have an easier time catching Greased Up Deaf Guy than really nailing down the UK on these points.

I'm reminded of a quote from Robert Louis Stevenson. "If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that's because the Referendum was a UK wide vote - as they understood - and any of the constituent countries in the UK can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, unlike Catalonia.

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584?lang=en

Only Westminster can give legally binding permission to hold an independence referendum. There is a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament yet the Tories have said no. What if the Scottish Parliament decided to hold a referendum without the agreement of Westminster?

When details of the deal were announced I was a bit miffed because I thought the EU had given the UK too much of an out. Any further movement would be unacceptable IMO.

Seth Brundle

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Quote to me the articles that the UK is turning its back on.

I don't need to. The UKs exit from the EU which automatically will be a hard Brexit unless they agree to the WA will result in a hard border no matter what spin they're saying currently.
The UK cannot have an open border if they wish to have any trade agreements.
No matter how hard the UK commits to having no hard border, if they don't agree to the WA then NI is getting a hard border!

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

When details of the deal were announced I was a bit miffed because I thought the EU had given the UK too much of an out. Any further movement would be unacceptable IMO.

Pretty much this for me too. The UK wide backstop was a step too far, but on balance I thought that if it would satisfy the loons in Westminster I'd be happy enough. I was so naive back then.

1st dalkey dalkey

I think it worthwhile to look again at the Article 50 which outlines the procedure for a country to leave the EU.

1)Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2)A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3)[10] of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council [of the European Union], acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3)The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4)For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
5)A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Art 50(1). The UK has complied, in that Parliament voted for it.

Art 50(2). The UK has complied with the notification provision. The EU has complied, in that it has negotiated a withdrawal agreement as required.

Art 50(3). This is where we are now. The UK either accepts the negotiated agreement or not. If not, then the treaties no longer apply after 29/3 ( unless there is an extension applied for and granted).

It is only now beginning to dawn on the UK's leaders just what "the treaties no longer apply" means, and they still cannot quite believe that it could really happen.
It can. And it will, if there is no movement to stop it. They have set a legal process in motion, fingerpointing and blame game will not stop it.
The choice is still theirs. They can withdraw the Art 50 notification, apply for an extension, accept the agreement or do nothing.
Exercising choice brings responsibility for the outcomes.

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

No, that's because the Referendum was a UK wide vote - as they understood - and any of the constituent countries in the UK can decide unilaterally to leave the UK, unlike Catalonia.

Which is extremely unusual in fact. Constitutional experts have suggested the individual nations of the UK should have had a veto over a mere advisory referendum result : these are actual countries with their own parliaments, not mere 'regions' of the UK like Lancashire or Cornwall or whatever.

Folkstonian

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

https://twitter.com/uk_together/status/506899714923843584?lang=en

Only Westminster can give legally binding permission to hold an independence referendum. There is a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament yet the Tories have said no. What if the Scottish Parliament decided to hold a referendum without the agreement of Westminster?

No they haven’t. There has been no formal request from the Scottish first minister to hold a second independence referendum.

How can permission be refused if it hasn’t even been sought?

You are being deliberately misleading.

ThePanjandrum

bobmalooka wrote: »

1. Correct,Ireland did sign up.
2. It does, Ireland have kept the necessary conditions to maintain an open border.
3. Implied in strand 2, Pro brexit people seem to struggle with this - Hense the need for explicit language in the WA.

Thanks for answering, I'm sorry but I had not noticed it before.

The point that immediately grabs my attention is point 3. Strand 2 is the one that deals with the North/South Ministerial Council and I would suggest that this was never intended to deal with the border issue. Briefly, my reasons for this would be that customs and borders are not one of the twelve areas suggested as being in the Annex, even though I accept that the list is not exhaustive but also, the remit of the council is

to develop consultation, co-operation and action within the
island of Ireland - including through implementation on an all-island and
cross-border basis - on matters of mutual interest within the competence
of the Administrations, North and South.

external borders are within the competence of a United Kingdom which has left the EU but are they within the competence of the Republic of Ireland. You Prime Minister has at the very least been implying that it is not, the involvement of the EU and the fact that this is within the Withdrawal Agreement also says that it is not, so although this was taken to be a joint competence, it now appears to have become an exclusive competence of the EU.

This is not surprising, because in the "Division of Competences Between the European Union and Its Member States Concerning Immigration" it states (in 1.3)

Similarly, according to Article 67(2) TFEU, covering the general provisions of the Title on the area of freedom, security and justice, the Union ‘shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control, based on solidarity between Member States, which is fair towards third-country nationals’.

The use of the term ‘common policy’ is not neutral. This term does not equate to sole competence on the part of the Union, and it is used in a way which does not always match the legal situation2. However, it bears witness to the political desire to pursue a comprehensive integration process and to organise a division of competences between the Member States and the Union in a direction which increasingly favours the latter3.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2011/453178/IPOL-LIBE_NT(2011)453178_EN.pdf

Quite frankly, that final sentence terrifies me because it clearly states that in the long term the EU will assume all competences. So even if you think that the Treaties reserve some powers for the individual states, those powers will eventually become powers which are exclusively powers of the EU.

As it stands, however, the competence on external borders is no longer Irelands so that border controls cannot be part of Strand 2.

You do say in point 2 that Ireland has kept the necessary conditions to maintain an open border. That is not correct. At best you could say that it has kept the necessary conditions to maintain an open border on the EU's terms. As the EU was not a party to the Belfast Agreement then the EU's preferences should not prevent one of the parties from fulfiling its commitments. At least, that would be the case if the borders fell within the GFA.

Sorry to be long and boring but do consider what effect the centralising of the competences will have on Ireland in the future,

A Dub in Glasgo

Folkstonian wrote: »

No they haven’t. There has been no formal request from the Scottish first minister to hold a second independence referendum.

How can permission be refused if it hasn’t even been sought?

You are being deliberately misleading.

https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/844135617911029760?lang=en

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/snp/nicola-sturgeon/news/98860/theresa-may-slaps-down-nicola-sturgeon-over

A Dub in Glasgo

Strazdas wrote: »

Which is extremely unusual in fact. Constitutional experts have suggested the individual nations of the UK should have had a veto over a mere advisory referendum result : these are actual countries with their own parliaments, not mere 'regions' of the UK like Lancashire or Cornwall or whatever.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33150080

'An SNP bid to make sure Britain's exit from the EU was dependant on all four nations voting for it in the referendum has been rejected.

During the committee stage of the Referendum Bill, Foreign Office Minister David Lidington said the amendment did "not make sense." '