Brexit discussion thread II

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2017 11:35PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

We have heard no more about the missing £490 billion pounds, lost down the back of the sofa.

It's no more lost than the drop in house prices.

The bricks and mortar in a persons home are still the same even if those with foreign currency can buy then at a substantially discounted price compared to before the vote.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-11-2017 11:36PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Brexit is likely to be followed by a hard border, then within five years, it will be followed by UK accession to the EEA.

The Swiss got concessions because they were merging towards fuller membership. So the UK won't be getting those.

The UK has a much greater population than the EFTA countries so very unlikely they'd be let join, so it would have to be a separate entry mechanism to EFTA. Which might not please the EFTA members so besides they can't get as good a deal as the EFTA , so no Norway deal.

Note that only sovereign states can join the EFTA so nether Scotland nor NI could as long as they are part of the UK

Turkey is in the customs union, but they have to accept all the EU trade deals.

Jim2007 · 13-11-2017 06:12AM

blanch152 wrote: »

followed by UK accession to the EEA.

They can't join the EEA, they need to join EFTA to take advantage of the EEA and the chances of the small current member states agreeing to having a major economy and a trouble maker change the nature of EFTA are not very high.

Peregrinus · 13-11-2017 06:34AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

They can't join the EEA, they need to join EFTA to take advantage of the EEA and the chances of the small current member states agreeing to having a major economy and a trouble maker change the nature of EFTA are not very high.

I wouldn't assume so. The EFTA represents the interests of those states which participate in the Single Market but do not wish to participate in the Union. It's a pretty small outfit, as you rightly point out, and it would be considerably beefed up by the addition of a regionally-significant economy such as the UK; they might then be able to drive a slightly harder bargain with the EU on the terms they get in the Single Market as non-EU Member States.

Plus, I don't think the EU would take too kindly to the likes of Norway or Leichtenstein attempting to (in effect) wield a veto over who can, and who cannot, participate in the Single Market. So if the UK wanted in, and the EU wanted them in, there would be a price to be paid if EFTA simply refused.

It's all hypothetical at the moment, obviously, but if the UK ever did want to re-enter the single market via EFTA, I think it the attitude of other EFTA members would be very much influenced by their perception of how keen the British were. If there were to be a sense that the UK establishment actually believed that economic integration without political union was a good thing for the UK, and they were genuinely enthusiastic about the project, and had interests which aligned will with those of other EFTA member states - then, yes, I could see the UK being welcomed into EFTA.

Jim2007 · 13-11-2017 06:40AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't assume so.

Then don't! Go read the treaties and the agreements.

Peregrinus · 13-11-2017 06:53AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Then don't! Go read the treaties and the agreements.

They don't what?

Samaris · 13-11-2017 08:56AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

We have heard no more about the missing £490 billion pounds, lost down the back of the sofa.

If they are not bothered to track down the missing half a trillion pounds, why are they bothered about whether the EU want €30 billion or €60 billion? Surely the benefit of moving onto trade talks would be worth it - sure they could print the money.

I know that's snark rather than a serious suggestion, but the EU saw currency issues in advance and have put in the condition that the money is paid in euros

. Sensible of them given the state of £Sterling!

View · 13-11-2017 09:12AM

Accession as an EFTA member to the EEA would require the UK to accept the Four Freedoms (including FoM) with all EEA/EFTA/EU member states. In addition it would mean the UK accepting all “EEA directives” - which are “EU directives with application to the EEA” - while having no votes on them. Neither of these are politically likely in today’s UK.

Lastly, politically speaking, the EU member states are highly unlikely to agree to EFTA being “beefed up” as an alternative to the EU. If another of the existing EFTA members leave it and join the EU, EFTA will basically be defunct and the remainder of it will probably be absorbed by the EU via some sort of special deal which gives EU membership with various opt-outs.

Peregrinus · 13-11-2017 09:24AM

I agree that, as matters stand right now, we're a long way from the UK even thinking about applying for EFTA membership. A great deal would have to change before this would be in the realm of the possible.

But, I have to point out, if the situation were to arise, the question of the EU's agreement to the UK joining EFTA would not arise. To join EFTA, the UK would need the agreement of the existing EFTA members, but not that of the EU, which is not a member.

However, joining EFTA doesn't automatically bring Single Market membership. That's based on an agreement between the EU and the state concerned - there are separate agreements for Norway, Iceland, etc, It's just that all the existing agreements are with EFTA member states and make use of EFTA structures (like the EFTA court) and its very unlikely that the EU would be willing to make a Single Market agreement with a state that wasn't in EFTA and wasn't intending to join it. What it comes down to is that EFTA membership is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for Single Market participation from outside the EU.

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 10:30AM

View wrote: »

Accession as an EFTA member to the EEA would require the UK to accept the Four Freedoms (including FoM) with all EEA/EFTA/EU member states. In addition it would mean the UK accepting all “EEA directives” - which are “EU directives with application to the EEA” - while having no votes on them. Neither of these are politically likely in today’s UK.

Lastly, politically speaking, the EU member states are highly unlikely to agree to EFTA being “beefed up” as an alternative to the EU. If another of the existing EFTA members leave it and join the EU, EFTA will basically be defunct and the remainder of it will probably be absorbed by the EU via some sort of special deal which gives EU membership with various opt-outs.

Of course they are not politically likely in today's UK, but my suggestion that it would happen wasn't based on today's UK, it was based on a post-Brexit UK that had been outside the EU for five years with no deal at all. That will be a very very changed UK.

wes · 13-11-2017 11:39AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The EU state the obvious and tell the Tories that they are putting the interests their party above those of NI. Breaking neutrality and siding with the DUP for one.The prime minister was accused of a lack of “care” for the peace process by one senior EU official.

I'm glad someone else sees it.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/12/eu-says-tories-putting-party-before-interests-northern-ireland

Time for legal action from the Irish government. There breaking the good Friday agreement imo.

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 11:45AM

wes wrote: »

Time for legal action from the Irish government. There breaking the good Friday agreement imo.

I keep hearing this argument that Brexit and the Tories are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the same time, nobody has ever pasted a link to the exact clause or paragraph or section of the GFA that is being broken.

Yes, at one level it can be argued that the spirit of the GFA is being broken (but that is an argument rather than a fact) but you cannot take legal action based on that.

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

FreudianSlippers · 13-11-2017 12:02PM

blanch152 wrote: »

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

I could be wrong on this, but I believe given this is a UK government alleged breach, the first port of call would be to the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

If there was an actual disagreement between the two governments, then perhaps International Court of Arbitration given I doubt UK will be happy for determination by the European courts.

wes · 13-11-2017 12:19PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I keep hearing this argument that Brexit and the Tories are in breach of the Good Friday Agreement. At the same time, nobody has ever pasted a link to the exact clause or paragraph or section of the GFA that is being broken.

Yes, at one level it can be argued that the spirit of the GFA is being broken (but that is an argument rather than a fact) but you cannot take legal action based on that.

So my question is, what exact legal action do you want taken, and on what basis to what court?

I am not a legal expert, but they have certainly broken neutrality and if they pull out of the ECHR, which under pins a lot of agreement, they would be a far more definitive breach.

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 12:22PM

wes wrote: »

I am not a legal expert, but they have certainly broken neutrality and if they pull out of the ECHR, which under pins a lot of agreement, they would be a far more definitive breach.

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

listermint · 13-11-2017 12:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

I would assume propping up Government using the DUP certainly breaks neutrality. something which was required for Brexit.

FreudianSlippers · 13-11-2017 12:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

What do you mean by "certainly broken neutrality"?

Brexit has nothing to do with the ECHR, so doesn't answer the question as to how Brexit breaches the GFA.

Social media is full of these kinds of statements that Brexit breaks the GFA, yet I have never seen any convincing argument that this is so.

The neutrality argument stems from the requirement that the British government be neutral in determination of the political agenda of the North (i.e. nationalist/unionist) and by engaging with the DUP and, more importantly, "becoming indebted" (which I'm still a little fuzzy on myself) somehow breaches that neutrality requirement. (I should note, I did a quick skim of the GFA just there and didn't immediately see where this would be enshrined in the agreement itself).

Compliance with the ECHR and ECtHR decisions are required by clause 5(b) and (c) of the agreement, so technically the UK doesn't need to be a "member" of the ECtHR so long as the legislation, public bodies and assembly comply with the decisions and the ECHR. I'd argue whether the UK is a "member" of the ECtHR, they are significantly likely to still comply with the scope of those decisions.

FreudianSlippers · 13-11-2017 12:37PM

listermint wrote: »

I would assume propping up Government using the DUP certainly breaks neutrality. something which was required for Brexit.

I note the word "neutrality" (or derivative "neutral") is not contained in the GFA. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, but I have to agree with blanch152 here... it's very vague that people are discussing breaches of the GFA without actually identifying the breach.

listermint · 13-11-2017 12:40PM

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/

It is worth explaining where these concerns are coming from. First, think about the idea of ‘rigorous impartiality’. This is central to the Good Friday Agreement and to the British-Irish Agreement (an international treaty between the UK and Ireland).The concept flows from the complex right of self-determination on which the current British-Irish constitutional compromise is based.

This is the notion that the future constitutional status of Northern Ireland should be decided by the people of Ireland alone; subject to the wishes of a majority of people in Northern Ireland (the consent principle). That is a choice that should be freely made and without detriment to anyone. It means that whoever exercises sovereign jurisdiction now (UK) ‘shall’ do so on an impartial basis ‘on behalf of all the people’ and that this:

‘shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities;’
The same principle would apply to the Irish Government in the event of a vote (north and south) for Irish unity. This is why there is so much discussion of neutrality and impartiality. Any deal between the Conservative Party and the DUP that infringed the above principles or strayed directly onto Good Friday Agreement territory (such as, for example, ruling out a unity referendum) runs a real risk of being in breach of Article 1 of the British-Irish Agreement.

POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

ambro25 · 13-11-2017 12:42PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I could be wrong on this, but I believe given this is a UK government alleged breach, the first port of call would be to the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

If there was an actual disagreement between the two governments, then perhaps International Court of Arbitration given I doubt UK will be happy for determination by the European courts.

I think you're right about the UK Supreme Court, given that it is the Northern Ireland Act 1998 which effectively implements the GFA on the British jurisdictional side.

The ICJ in The Hague is out of the picture, given that Ireland (at the time it signed up to the jurisdiction of ICJ) states that it recognises the jurisdiction of the ICJ “with the exception of any legal dispute with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in regard to Northern Ireland”. So this explicitly prevents the Good Friday Agreement being discussed in the International Court of Justice.

FreudianSlippers · 13-11-2017 12:46PM

listermint wrote: »

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/

POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

The last sentence is key; if the deal does directly result in inequality between the communities then there is an issue but if it doesn't then there isn't. I'm positive that in 1998 if you told anyone on these two islands that there would be a Northern Irish political party in a position that the DUP are currently in you'd be looked at like an insane person, but I would have to suggest that the GFA was never drafted to envisage this situation however surely it wasn't drafted to prevent any such agreement.

I fundamentally agree that Brexit is a significant issue with regard to the constitutional status of N.I. and this should be considered but I'm not sure I totally follow the logic on the Tory/DUP angle.

ambro25 · 13-11-2017 12:52PM

Oh, but to be a fly on the wall in today's May-EU27 businesses meeting

Ahead of tomorrow's debate Mrs May will be discussing the future of UK-EU trade post-Brexit in a meeting today with business leaders from Europe

<...>

During the event, which the Confederation of British Industry has helped organise, Mrs May will set out her vision of a "bold and deep economic partnership" between the UK and EU after the country leaves the bloc.

Groups represented include the BDI and BDA from Germany, Medef from France and the EU-wide BusinessEurope.

Can't hardly wait for the leaks :pac:

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 01:07PM

listermint wrote: »

Some subject matter here?

http://qpol.qub.ac.uk/ni-rigorous-impartiality/

POSTED BY PROFESSOR COLIN HARVEY
Dr Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast.

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

listermint · 13-11-2017 01:27PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

View · 13-11-2017 01:58PM

listermint wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, but that is a reference to how a DUP/Conservative government might break the GFA. Like the claim that withdrawing from the ECHR would break the GFA, neither of them have anything to do with Brexit.

The argument I have heard repeated on here is that the mere fact of Brexit and/or a hard border are direct breaches of the GFA. I have not been able to find concrete evidence of this.

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

No, unless the GFA specifically precludes such a possibility the possibility of a hard border (and Brexit will always be held by the current UK government as trumping everything even if it did preclude it).

Water John · 13-11-2017 02:04PM

The Gove/Johnson letter, the 40 MPs wanting May out makes the UK Govn't wholly unstable. A simple question is, who speaks for the people of the UK?

Without a clear answer, things will collapse in chaos. Putin, Farage, Bannon et al will be delighted.

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 02:05PM

listermint wrote: »

Could it not be argued that the point of a Hard Border would have to be 'put' to the population as part of the GFA

Anything can be argued, and there may well be an argument along it being within the spirit of the agreement and/or that it is politically desirable, but wes was calling on the Irish government to take legal action. I do not see any legal requirement to hold such a referendum.

It would also be interesting to see where advantage lies in these things and what are the crucial issues. For example, take a situation whereby a deal was possible for a hard border along the Irish Sea with special status for Northern Ireland within the EU, with Single Market, ECJ, Customs Union etc. applying to Northern Ireland but a cast-iron guarantee for unionists that the Queen would remain sovereign in everything else, and that the flag of Northern Ireland would be the British flag, no referendum for a generation, and the Irish government in order to preserve an open border signing up to such guarantees? In other words, some practical steps towards unity in exchange for the big issue of sovereignty being put on a very long finger. An FG Taoiseach might deliver that.

This could pose the most difficulty for Sinn Fein. At the end of the day, they are not particularly interested in a soft border, because they lose moneymaking opportunities and it doesn't particularly advance unity. A hard border with severe economic disruption in Northern Ireland is SF's best case for securing unity in the medium term as moderate unionists are persuaded with their pockets.

Water John · 13-11-2017 02:16PM

I think, no referendum for a generation, would be contrary to the GFA?

blanch152 · 13-11-2017 02:21PM

Water John wrote: »

I think, no referendum for a generation, would be contrary to the GFA?

If there is to be a hard Border along the Irish Sea, it will require an agreement between the UK, Ireland and the EU. Such an agreement would replace parts of the GFA and could contain anything.

Water John · 13-11-2017 02:24PM

If SF, held their noses, and took their seats in Westminister, it would largely nullify the unique influence the DUP have ATM. That would be their greatest contribution to Irish politics.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments