Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Nody

Lumen wrote: »

Unfortunately Cameron threw his toys out of the pram and exited stage right, and Theresa May eventually stumbled into invoking article 50, thus losing control of the timeline.

I keep seeing this in the last couple of pages and I wonder if the posters either have rose tinted glasses or did not bother to follow the issue at the time. To be clear she did not "stumble" into it or "accidentally" do it etc. It was done for two very clear reasons. First of all EU made it perfectly clear they would not talk a single topic on Brexit before the letter was sent (and this was UK's first "brilliant" plan to talk Brexit before actually sending the A50 letter to see if it was worth it or not) and UK would be sidelined on the meetings. The second part and this is fully the Brexiteers fault were their howling how not sending the letter was a "betrayal of the people's will" etc. basically threatening T. May to be sacked. The problem was T. May never got to grips with her party nor could the party actually create a cohesive Brexit plan (several were flouted and sunk over her duration after all inc. the "If you don't sign under on this plan you're fired" etc.) that the party could accept. We know why because the party had such widely different ideas what Brexit meant as well as a lot of it was pie in the sky items. In the end T. May got worn down as we saw over time and all attempts to rally the party ended up with knives in her back; we're seeing the same thing now with Boris with the only difference he got a big enough majority in commons that he don't have to worry as much basically.

Zubeneschamali

Lumen wrote: »

There are several countries that have low-friction land borders with the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.

There is nothing in principle which prevents a similar non-contentious border on the island of Ireland, provided that the process carries the population of northern Ireland with it, in the spirit of genuinely respectful consultation.

Nope, no way, no chance, ever.

The first customs post that goes up will be destroyed. Security will be needed to defend the second, and they will be attacked. It escalates from there.

The reason the GFA led to peace was that the Single Market eliminated the border.

Wherever England ends up, NI has to stay in the single market. Easier after Scotland rejoins the SM.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

I keep seeing this in the last couple of pages and I wonder if the posters either have rose tinted glasses or did not bother to follow the issue at the time. To be clear she did not "stumble" into it or "accidentally" do it etc. It was done for two very clear reasons. First of all EU made it perfectly clear they would not talk a single topic on Brexit before the letter was sent (and this was UK's first "brilliant" plan to talk Brexit before actually sending the A50 letter to see if it was worth it or not) and UK would be sidelined on the meetings. The second part and this is fully the Brexiteers fault were their howling how not sending the letter was a "betrayal of the people's will" etc. basically threatening T. May to be sacked. The problem was T. May never got to grips with her party nor could the party actually create a cohesive Brexit plan (several were flouted and sunk over her duration after all inc. the "If you don't sign under on this plan you're fired" etc.) that the party could accept. We know why because the party had such widely different ideas what Brexit meant as well as a lot of it was pie in the sky items. In the end T. May got worn down as we saw over time and all attempts to rally the party ended up with knives in her back; we're seeing the same thing now with Boris with the only difference he got a big enough majority in commons that he don't have to worry as much basically.

That is all true.

However, she could have talked to the opposition and got cross party support for the way forward, and perhaps a joint agreement on what to seek by way of a deal. She never did talk to the opposition in any meaningful way.

The EU refused to discuss anything prior to art 50, but there was nothing to stop the UK talking to each EU member state to see what was important to each of them - listening not dictating.

The problem they had was that they believed, and still do, that Germany and France were the only states that mattered. Even more, that those two member states would sell all the others down the river if their own sectional interests were looked after.

How wrong they were and how wrong they still are.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, no way, no chance, ever.

The first customs post that goes up will be destroyed. Security will be needed to defend the second, and they will be attacked. It escalates from there.

The reason the GFA led to peace was that the Single Market eliminated the border.

Wherever England ends up, NI has to stay in the single market. Easier after Scotland rejoins the SM.

The reason why the GFA worked in bringing peace, among other things, was that someone in NI, looking South saw no border, and another looking East also saw no border. That was taken as equality of esteem.

That idea has lost some of its shine, but is still there despite the DUP trying at every turn to poison public opinion. Sinn Fein are not far behind them in this.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, no way, no chance, ever.

The first customs post that goes up will be destroyed. Security will be needed to defend the second, and they will be attacked. It escalates from there.

The reason the GFA led to peace was that the Single Market eliminated the border.

Wherever England ends up, NI has to stay in the single market. Easier after Scotland rejoins the SM.

You do realise that you are effectively saying that the NI peace process was a sham, don’t you?

The central point of the GFA was that the future of NI would be exclusively decided by peaceful, democratic means, not that this would be conditional.

Lumen

Nody wrote: »

EU made it perfectly clear they would not talk a single topic on Brexit before the letter was sent...

This was a deliberate trap. The EU didn't expect the UK to fall for it.

Zubeneschamali

View wrote: »

You do realise that you are effectively saying that the NI peace process was a sham, don’t you?

Not at all. Republicans agreed to no Border with Britain because they had no Border in Ireland. Then England jumps in with both feet, overrides NIs wish to Remain and drags the UK out of the EU, threatening a new border on the island of Ireland. Undermine the conditions which led to peace, no surprise peace goes away.

54and56

I know I'll probably get a wrap on the knuckles for this but I'm listening to the David McWilliams Podcast and this week he tackles Brexit.

Two quotes have me in stitches:-

To paraphrase:

"The UK has gone from ruling the waves to waving the rules"

"Never has so much been fcuked up for so many by so few".

I'll take the card/ban if necessary as I thought these were worth sharing!!

johnnyskeleton

Winters wrote: »

I thank our PR and STV for providing some of the safeguards against the kind of two party systems and binary politics that are unfolding in other countries but we arent immune to any unstable politics that can arise. Unification will be our Brexit if it ever comes to pass.

Not just that but the cohesion shown by all political parties (bar the fringe ones) has been phenomenal. Especially Sinn Fein who have been at loggerheads with FG and FF for the last decade, who are generally eurosceptic and who are also sometimes in power in the North could easily have decided to weigh in on Brexit at any stage for their own political gain to the detriment of the country. So, whatever your views of SF or indeed any of the parties, you must tip your hat to them and say kudos for the unified front that they have displayed throughout the process.

And if the Hermann Kellys of this world want to look for an Irexit, we didn't shut them up or react angrily to them, we just let them run out of steam. Whatever flaws we have in our domestic policies (and indeed there are many), we can all be immensely proud of how our country united and responded in a measured and dignified way against Brexit.

English people, by contrast, are divided into two main groups and one minor group. The main groups are either the people who stay silent or the ones who are incredibly vocal and have lost all sense of decency and rationality. The smaller group are the people like James O'Brien who keep trying to restore some sense of rationality and actual national pride (as opposed to the horrible xenophobic national pride currently being displayed) to the English. Kudos to him too

johnnyskeleton

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nope, no way, no chance, ever.

The first customs post that goes up will be destroyed. Security will be needed to defend the second, and they will be attacked. It escalates from there.

The reason the GFA led to peace was that the Single Market eliminated the border.

Wherever England ends up, NI has to stay in the single market. Easier after Scotland rejoins the SM.

It is unquestionably a risk, that has been signalled from the outset. But I'm not sure that it's a dead cert that a physical border will lead to violence. Who exactly is going to be destroying it?

A. The Provisionals - it seems to me that they have the greatest incentive to stick to the GFA, even if the British Government does not. So an end to the ceasefire is probably not an option. Certainly, no one has signalled from PIRA army council that they would consider it such a breach as to end the ceasefire.
B. Splinter groups - the most likely candidates, but I'm not sure they have the capacity for such an audacious attack. They don't accept the ceasefire, but other than the Omagh bombing and maybe a few other minor incidents, they haven't really shown the capacity to attack on such a scale.
C. Loyalists/Unionists - again unlikely, as they are quite content to be split off from the Irish State.
D. Random disaffected yoofs - possible, but again I don't see them being capable of doing much more than e.g. graffiting them, getting talked to by the Gardai/PSNI and then quitting it. This risk is similar to the risk considered when they introduced Dublin Bikes, and it largely didn't materialise.

I think it is important to point out the risk of violence caused by a physical border. But it is more important to point out the less sensational aspects of it. People being hassled when they visit their pals in Strabane/Lifford. No cheap groceries from Enniskillen, nor days out shopping in Dublin. A plumber in Dundalk cannot legally call out for an emergency job in Newry. Having to bring your passport when you want to see the Titanic Exhibition. Long delays on the roads. Extra paperwork for hauliers. Not being able to send your Cavan milk to the local creamery in Fermanagh. The list goes on and on.

These are the real problems with Brexit. Having told 1.8 million odd people that they can identify as British, or Irish, or both, or neither, they will now be visibly reminded that if they are Irish, they are living under a foreign jurisdiction. The DUP's argument that they would feel the same if there was a sea border holds very little weight. Many if not most of their goods coming from GB come through Dublin anyway as its quicker and easier, and that there might be some low level checks on those goods that enter a port in Scotland and transit over to Northern Ireland (but not on the reverse journey) is not something that impacts the daily life of an Ulster Unionist in any meaningful way.

I think that is the message, rather than the return to violence.

Tell me how

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not just that but the cohesion shown by all political parties (bar the fringe ones) has been phenomenal. Especially Sinn Fein who have been at loggerheads with FG and FF for the last decade, who are generally eurosceptic and who are also sometimes in power in the North could easily have decided to weigh in on Brexit at any stage for their own political gain to the detriment of the country. So, whatever your views of SF or indeed any of the parties, you must tip your hat to them and say kudos for the unified front that they have displayed throughout the process.

And if the Hermann Kellys of this world want to look for an Irexit, we didn't shut them up or react angrily to them, we just let them run out of steam. Whatever flaws we have in our domestic policies (and indeed there are many), we can all be immensely proud of how our country united and responded in a measured and dignified way against Brexit.

English people, by contrast, are divided into two main groups and one minor group. The main groups are either the people who stay silent or the ones who are incredibly vocal and have lost all sense of decency and rationality. The smaller group are the people like James O'Brien who keep trying to restore some sense of rationality and actual national pride (as opposed to the horrible xenophobic national pride currently being displayed) to the English. Kudos to him too

I agree with this but am curious how the UK system has developed in to this. The 80 seat majority the Tories gained just beggars belief given the behaviour of all participants very publicly in the years leading up to that election.

Would Keir Starmer, were he to have been in place for at least a year prior to that, have been enough to have that majority swing to the other side? As Femi Oluwole points out, and has done for a long time, the only single majority left in the UK is for remaining, all leave advocates want different versions and yet this 'majority' are completely handicapped for the next 4 years.

If Trump wins in the US (currently less likely, but not impossible) then I really won't know how two such countries will have bought in to such divisive populism to such significant levels.

This is why I think we need to be continually vigilant in Ireland and to ensure we don't think such populism by people with no genuine skill in governing isn't allowed to gain a foothold but I expect it will continue to be a risk.

An Claidheamh

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Some other crackers:






I mean, what can you actually do with such delusion?

---

I'm reminded of the time a couple of years back where, fully serious, Theresa May argued, in front of Leo Varadkar and Angela Merkel that "you can't just split a country in two!"

British delusion is a special kind of delusion.

Cognitive dissonance at it’s best.

He can’t bring himself to note Irish freedom and democracy was against the British empire, or that if Britain still didn’t occupy part of Ireland there would be no border - the question is always the same, why would we help them?

Definitely nonsense for a certain audience, he probably bounced between being edgy from “left wing” to Brit nationalist

His audience are certainly deluded though, and stupid

Spiked should be classed amongst the Daily Express/Mail at this stage

fash

Lumen wrote: »

This was a deliberate trap. The EU didn't expect the UK to fall for it.

Exactly this. UK should have said "you won't talk that's fine. Hey what was that unanimous decision you needed to make" - or more subtle destabilizing moves - "we are not sure if we'll be around in a few months/years - we can't agree in that" etc. If they'd waited a little longer, they'd have had UK MEPs in the next parliamentary cycle. Lots of areas to subtly bring the EU to discussing things in principle - and without a clock.

Strazdas

Winters wrote: »

I thank our PR and STV for providing some of the safeguards against the kind of two party systems and binary politics that are unfolding in other countries but we arent immune to any unstable politics that can arise. Unification will be our Brexit if it ever comes to pass.

In fairness, nearly everyone concedes unification would be complex and would require years of planning before before it could even be put to referendum - nearly everything would have to be agreed before it could be voted on. Brexit is a chaotic shambles in comparison, a veritable car crash.

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

Exactly this. UK should have said "you won't talk that's fine. Hey what was that unanimous decision you needed to make" - or more subtle destabilizing moves - "we are not sure if we'll be around in a few months/years - we can't agree in that" etc. If they'd waited a little longer, they'd have had UK MEPs in the next parliamentary cycle. Lots of areas to subtly bring the EU to discussing things in principle - and without a clock.

And they were warned, clearly, at the time not to go ahead and that it was handing significant advantage to the EU.

But they wouldn't listen. But even with the warnings, I doubt the people warning them had any idea that the UK had done almost no preparation. They had no strategy, no target, no idea of hw to get there. THey hadn't sounded out the options, started off record talks, nothing.

IT was all about them, they had voted BRexit and now it was time for the EU to pay the price. Except the EU didn't move. THey simply stuck to their lines. At it has continued on like that every since, with the UK seemingly being surprised with every new area of contention.

fash

.
Wonder how much publicity this will get in GB?
Kinda undermines Johnson's message of care about NI

fash

. other interesting narrative being lined up by the UK. The upcoming chaos has nothing to do with the UK but is all down to shoddy work by all those feckless Europeans.

Igotadose

fash wrote: »

. other interesting narrative being lined up by the UK. The upcoming chaos has nothing to do with the UK but is all down to shoddy work by all those feckless Europeans.

Excellent thread to read esp. with the linked thread capturing all the places UK is unprepared - vet inspectors, wooden pallets, IT systems. Basically, nothing new since the last time these exact same issues came up near the end of 2019.

Leroy42

fash wrote: »

. other interesting narrative being lined up by the UK. The upcoming chaos has nothing to do with the UK but is all down to shoddy work by all those feckless Europeans.

But even if you were to grant them this narrative, surely it was beholden on the UK to make sure the EU got as prepared as possible?

Was that not part of the planning?

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

. other interesting narrative being lined up by the UK. The upcoming chaos has nothing to do with the UK but is all down to shoddy work by all those feckless Europeans.

They're going full Belarus or North Korea at this stage. If Brexit goes belly up and turns into a calamity, someone else must have caused it.

fash

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even if you were to grant them this narrative, surely it was beholden on the UK to make sure the EU got as prepared as possible?

Was that not part of the planning?

Nobody cares about logic or truth any more - none of that matters.

5GMadeMeDoIt

As far as violence goes if customs posts go up, the most likely manifestation will probably be in fairly large civil riots in Derry and Belfast. Problem then comes from how the authorities act and if dissidents or loyalists decide to stick their oar in. Things can escalate fairly quickly as the past has shown.

Strazdas

5GMadeMeDoIt wrote: »

As far as violence goes if customs posts go up, the most likely manifestation will probably be in fairly large civil riots in Derry and Belfast. Problem then comes from how the authorities act and if dissidents or loyalists decide to stick their oar in. Things can escalate fairly quickly as the past has shown.

I would say it would be more likely we would see peaceful protests at the border first - blockades, sit down protests etc.

I can't see the initial response being violence or terrorism.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not at all. Republicans agreed to no Border with Britain because they had no Border in Ireland. Then England jumps in with both feet, overrides NIs wish to Remain and drags the UK out of the EU, threatening a new border on the island of Ireland. Undermine the conditions which led to peace, no surprise peace goes away.

The opt-out on Schengen in the Treaty of Amsterdam, which was signed at roughly the same time, specifically allows for Ireland to opt-in to Schengen on its own and that would have required a hard border if the U.K. chose not to follows us. So, clearly, our government did envisage the possibility that we might opt-in to Schengen without the U.K. and were aware that might require a border.

In addition, there are no clauses or any conditions in the GFA that state there will be no border in Ireland.

Nor is there any clause in the GFA that prohibited the U.K. from leaving the EU if it so desired - again another event that would have triggered a border scenario.

And, irrespective of all of the above, the commitment to peaceful, democratic means was unconditional. There was and is no “Ah, but if X does Y or Z, we will all go back to violence” in the GFA.

Snickers Man

McGiver wrote: »

Latest Brendan O'Neil's intellectual vomit.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/17/its-time-for-ireland-to-grow-up/

Whoa! Did you put "Brendan O'Neill" and "intellectual" in the same sentence?

That's like talking about "Cardi B's demure countenance" or "Vinnie Jones' finesse".

O'Neill is a former Revolutionary Communist turned right-wing populist. Straight out of the Claire Fox (I beg her pardon, Baroness Fox) school of political Flip Floppery.

He's dirt.

(So's she)

Snickers Man

Anyone read in the Irish Times a few days ago Fintan O'Toole's demolition of "Brexit as British-led Utopia" as predicted by arch Brexiteer Daniel Hannan a few days before the Brexit referendum in 2016?

Well, here's a link to the original article. Fintan was actually toning his comments down a little.

Now in fairness to Mr Hannan, he was predicting what the world would look like in June 2025, so we still have nearly a full five years to go. Maybe some of his predictions will come true by then. But so far.....not looking good :D:D

Let's be sure to come back to this on June 24th 2025. If we're all still here

reslfj

Lumen wrote: »

I think you are overreaching slightly there.

There are several countries that have low-friction land borders with the EU, like Norway and Switzerland.

Norway is a member of the SM via the EEA. Switzerland is de facto a members of the SM via 100+ linked deals.
And even then only selected border crossings can be used for lorries, where stops and km long queues are no uncommon e.g. from Germany into Basel.

This is very, very different from the UK's demand for no SM/CU and no ECJ.

If the UK had immediately asked for an EEA SM + CU deal, the Irish border problem could very likely have been solved. But this would have required full FoM.

The CU is very much needed for the UK industry and UK export of food (farm+fish).
In addtion CU membership eliminates most profitable smuggling.

Lars

Imreoir2

Lumen wrote: »

May was reportedly obsessed with immigration, particularly at the Home Office. She completely failed to "take control of the borders" as Home Sec, and this was not the EU's fault. Apart from the usual bureacratic incompetence, to have even a chance of controlling who is in and out of the country you need strong identity, and the British are culturally opposed to identity cards (see doomed id card project of the early noughties), associating them with nasty European dictators. Oh, the delicious irony!

I heard an interesting insight that the whole issue around immigraton was just a cockup of bad strategy.

They wanted to diffuse the whole immigration issue by setting a fixed target which initially was more or less in line with current trends. Basicly saying the then current amount of immigration is the right amount of immigration and we definatly wont let in more than just so happen to be comming anyway.

Then in the following years immigration started going up and they were unable to either meet the target they had set, or change the target for political reasons. They didn't really want to meet the target and did nothing to introduce actual measures to limit immigration, but at the same time it was a target they were failing to meet which got under May's skin as the minister responsible.

Basicly they hung themselves with the policy they thought would take the heat out of the issue. Kind of like how the Brexit vote turned out really.

reslfj

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is all true.
...
The EU refused to discuss anything prior to art 50, but there was nothing to stop the UK talking to each EU member state... - listening not dictating.

The UK did talk to more EU27 states - the UK may even have listened to them - but was by all member states referred back to Michel Barnier and Brussels.

Michel Barnier kept a very close 'on site' personal contact to every member state and local problem areas - e.g. visiting fishers in DK, people at the NI-RoI border.

Lumen wrote: »

This was a deliberate trap. The EU didn't expect the UK to fall for it.

You are all wrong here. There was never any change for anything but the EU sequencing of negotiations. It took literally minutes of the first negotiations for David Davids to be forced to accept this.

Lars

Imreoir2

fash wrote: »

. other interesting narrative being lined up by the UK. The upcoming chaos has nothing to do with the UK but is all down to shoddy work by all those feckless Europeans.

There is the reality of Brexit in a nutshell, not take back control, but beyond our control.

That is exactly what Britain will get, deminished power and influence in the world.