Brexit Impact on Northern Ireland

When would the command paper get turned into actual legislation? Isn't that when this will actually be sorted out?

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120296577#Comment_120296577

If it's rejected and the DUP don't go in to the assembly then surely it's time to move to joint authority between Dublin and London to run the place.

If that was put forward the Unionists would go back in a heartbeat.

Mr.Nice Guy

Problem for unionism if they essentially torpedo Stormont and go for Direct Rule rather than stomach O'Neill as FM is that SF could well be in power in the south in the coming years. And a Labour government in Westminster, coupled with a SF government in Dublin exercising whatever influence it can over NI, with no unionists to counter it, isn't going to be a pleasant prospect.

FrancieBrady

Are the 7 tests being quietly dropped?

Why the need for this consultation if the tests are still the benchmark? The deal fails the tests.

DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson has established a group to conduct a consultation on the Windsor Framework, with a report to be produced by the end of March:

Includes: Carla Lockhart, Peter Weir, Peter Robinson, Arlene Foster, Ross Reed, Brian Kingston, John McBurney & Deborah Erskine.

https://twitter.com/brendanhughes64/status/1632758165644226561

https://twitter.com/brendanhughes64/status/1632758165644226561

weemcd

Cowardly move from Donaldson, unsurprisingly. He looks incredibly weak and indecisive here. I've just seen him prattling on BBC NI News, really dragging the hole out of this, talking about a timeframe of a month or more to decide.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120322118#Comment_120322118

He hasn't included Richard Bullick who wrote the 7 tests, which is interesting. Are we seeing the split begining to form?

weemcd

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120322183#Comment_120322183

Indications from many different sources that a DUP split is imminent. Since they have refused to get off the protocol horse and turned it into the be all and end all issue, I fail to see how they can keep a broad base of voters happy one way or the other. The fact that Donaldson is an utter coward who somehow feels he has to answer to the likes of Bryson doesn't help either. Far from a happy camp.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120321734#Comment_120321734

Why the need for the consultation? Michelle O'Neill puts it down to delaying a decision until after the local elections in May. The DUP can appear either hardline or constructive or both, depending on where they are canvassing.

After the election of course, they're going to need to jump one way or the other. Past experience would see them opposing the framework (naturally), until they're then (pretending to be) annoyed when the British government forces it through.

It still won't restore Stormont though.

I hope the non-hardline Unionist/Alliance voters give them a right earful when they go canvassing. They must be sick of the carry-on.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120311179#Comment_120311179

I know few on here accept my version of how the Belfast brake works, but here is the British gov going even further. Let me know guys when you will retract all your assertions that a cc vote was needed etc.

https://twitter.com/sjamcbride/status/1633886900837838848?s=46&t=YWssdJFiV59sAbPBVFblfQ

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337516#Comment_120337516

I'm agnostic on the petition of concern vote as the talk from the govt and the actual texts released don't match up well. Historically speaking, the UK govt line can not be particularly trusted, however it is essentially an internal UK mechanism.

Ultimately though, I am supremely confident in saying that Westminster will not feel bound by a damn thing coming from the NI assembly unless it suits them.

Leroy42

Unfortunately a minister of HMG saying something is of no consequence.

One thing that everyone should have learnt at this stage is that very little of what any of the government say should be taken at face value.

This is a man that last week said he felt Johnson was an honest person!

Unfortunately for the UK, many Tories seem to be unable to A)read actual legislation or B) understand it if they do read it.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337516#Comment_120337516

Did he say Assembly or 30 MLAs Downcow?

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337814#Comment_120337814

I haven’t seen his actual quote, and I absolutely agree he cannot be trusted, but it is interesting that they are still 100% on my version. Francie said that eu and roi politicians were briefing that a cc vote was required. They and francie have gone silent in the matter so I’m guessing the Uk may have been the correct briefing this time

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337861#Comment_120337861

Who is 100% on your version if you haven't seen the quote, the Belfast Telegraph?

Surely you would wait to see what he actually said.

FrancieBrady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337744#Comment_120337744

Their PM came to Belfast and lied directly to their faces in order to advance Tory interests. They (Unionists) seem to have a bottomless pit of trust for the Tories.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337720#Comment_120337720

I would side with your legal view of the petition of concern.

However, I would also say that a Tory government might say that it would be bound by a petition of concern on EU legislation submitted by unionists. That is a policy decision.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337903#Comment_120337903

Yes the Belfast telegraph.

Peregrinus

Regular NI-watchers won't be surprised to see creative ambiguity out in the wild; it's not a rarity.

"In X event, the government is bound to do Y" can mean:

• that in X event, the government is likely to do Y, or will predictably do Y; or
• that in X event, the government is obliged or required to do Y.

And that second option can be further broken down into (a) the government is legally obliged to do Y, or (b) the government is politically obliged to do Y.

In short, Heaton-Harris's statement, as reported, can mean pretty what the reader wants it to mean. I don't think this is an accident.

To my mind, it actually doesn't matter what it means. So far as the legally binding arrangements between the EU and the UK goes, the whole point of the brake is to allow the UK, in certain circumstances, to veto the application in NI of amendments to EU laws. But, when the occasion arises, the UK will be free to exercise that veto, or not, as it decides. (If the treaty required the application of the amendment to be vetoed, then it wouldn't be a UK veto; the UK wouldn't be in control on this point.)

So, whatever Chris Heaton-Harris - or any government minister - says, all they are doing is setting out government thinking, or government policy, on how the UK government would exercise its control, if and when the occasion arises. Government thinking, and government policy, can change. It almost certainly will change after the next Westminster election, because (a) parliamentary sovereignty, baby - the present parliament cannot bind the next one, and (b) there's going to be a change of government.

I think this points to a systemic problem for contemporary unionism. Unionist principles - and especially unionist brexiters' principles - require that this matter should be controlled by the UK, but political realities mean that unionists can't rely on Westminster to exercise that control in the way that unionists - and especially unionist brexiters - might wish it to.

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120337720#Comment_120337720

I am sorry to say this again, but it is not a petition of concern vote. Rather, according to the FM, it is enacted in the same was as the POC ie it needs 30 votes. I am still pretty sure that is the brake applied. After that there is a process that does not involve stormont in which the Uk can take the brake off. H-H seems to be saying the Uk will not release the brake (but I completely agree that cannot be trusted).

but is there anyone on here who still believes that the brake requires a cc vote? Are have people moved to my initial position on this (which again I was laughed and scoffed for)

FrancieBrady

Watching The View last night and it seems there is a very real possibilty that Heaton H spoke off the cuff and out of turn again,

FrancieBrady

Jon Tonge explaining rather well how The British are once again overselling and proposing something that is contrary to what is in the legal texts.

https://twitter.com/bbctheview/status/1633974694708670464

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120338849#Comment_120338849

People believe that a petition of concern vote is required because if it is not than it is a fairly poorly written document that is sowing confusion. When it comes to NI it is also far from unknown for the govt to basically lie about what they have agreed. Like I said, I'm agnostic on the matter.

However, I am fairly certain that the brake is not automatically applied based on anything that happens in the assembly. The NI Assembly has no standing to do such a thing. It is a means of informing Westminster of their wishes, and Westminster will then ultimately investigate and decide whether or not to inform the EU. It is, in one sense, a semantic distinction of course - whether the Govt can overrule the Assembly or has to choose whether to act on the assembly petition the ultimate outcome is that it is a Westminster decision.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120338066#Comment_120338066

I think a Tory government/Tory ministers might say lots of things that are untrue. They have a rich history of it.

a) maybe they would in fact feel obliged to follow through and forward any Unionist objection to the EU and face the consequences that brings. I personally doubt it, but its almost impossible to know

b) it won't be a Tory govt for much longer one suspects

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120338849#Comment_120338849

I think what you say here is basically right. The 30-MLA trigger does look a lot like the first stage of the Petition of Concern process. which also involves 30 MLAs, but it isn't. It's the first stage of a different process, the second stage of which takes place at the Joint Committee (made up of representatives of Westminster and Brussels; Stormont reps are not involved).

I think confusion has arisen not just because of the similarity between the two first stages, but because the UK government at one point suggested that the position it would adopt in the Joint Committee would, or might, be dependent or partly dependent on a cross-community vote in Stormont (i.e. a lot like the second stage of the PoC process). That may have encouraged some people to assume that the first stage of the brake would indeed also be the first stage of the PoC process.

But there's nothing in the agreed texts about this; the idea of taking account of a cross-community vote is just a policy position that the UK government would or might adopt. But the whole idea of the brake is that it will be used infrequently, and there are other conditions that must be satisfied apart from the 30-MLA requirement before the brake can be used at all. Between the jigs and the reels, it's entirely possible that, the first time a Westminster government actually has occasion to respond to a real-life invocation of the Stormont brake, it'll be a Labour government.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120339125#Comment_120339125

I think that the way of reconciling their statements with the text is that they are adopting your (a) as a policy position.

standardg60

https://twitter.com/irishagreement/status/1633977571749552136/mediaviewer

So he said precisely nothing on who gets to apply the brake.

Grassey

I'd love to see the DUP argument for using this as a test case.

"We demand pulling the brake because we support more arsenic being allowed in our baby food... "

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2023/03/10/new-eu-arsenic-rules-catch-northern-ireland-between-brussels-and-london/

downcow

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120339119#Comment_120339119

I am not sure on this one either. But I think that stormont applies the brake (there’s talk of 4 week delay but that pretty meaningless as it would take more than 4 weeks for rule to hit the ground I think). Uk then decide do they allow the brake to stay on or do they let it off. HH said they would not be releasing it - but I agree with everyone that that is just meaningless chat.

downcow

i Have extremely limited legal understanding but I have been given this - maybe it’s in the public domain tbh I don’t know.

I think this puts the matter to bed, imho 100% in agreement with what I have been saying since the outset. I think it tells us that cc voting is not part of the process - but some of you legal brains can confirm or otherwise. Let me know if you guys agree

“7 An emergency brake mechanism should be established enabling Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland, under each of the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of the Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom on involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement annexed to this Decision, to address significant impacts specific to everyday lives of communities arising from the application in Northern Ireland of provisions of Union law, as amended or replaced by future Union acts.”

“ANNEX I

Unilateral Declaration by the United Kingdom Involvement of the institutions of the 1998 Agreement

1. The United Kingdom will adopt the following procedure to operate the emergency brake mechanism in Article 13(3a) of the Windsor Framework6. This mechanism will apply in the unique circumstances of this Declaration and is without prejudice to the status of cross-community voting and safeguards in the 1998 Agreement, which apply solely and exclusively to devolved matters.

downcow

Interesting