Brexit discussion thread II

demfad wrote: »

You stated that nobody had referenced articles of the GFA that would be affected by Brexit. That statement was false. If you wanted me to link to articles of the GFA that YOU AGREED were affected by Brexit you should have said and would not have bothered replying.



With respect I would take the legal opinions of the most prominent Senior Council in the ROI and the most prominent Queens Council in NI above yours.

I agree with their opinion that the GFA would need to be renegotiated. Here is some other areas of GFA where European Union membership is implied. Note in the opening statement of the GFA it is categorically implied:

AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND

The British and Irish Governments:
Welcoming the strong commitment to the Agreement reached on 10th April 1998 by themselves and other participants in the multi-party talks and set out in Annex 1 to this Agreement (hereinafter "the Multi-Party Agreement");
Considering that the Multi-Party Agreement offers an opportunity for a new beginning in relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands;
Wishing to develop still further the unique relationship between their peoples and the closeco-operation between their countries as friendly neighbours and as partners in the European Union;
Reaffirming their total commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence which have been fundamental to the multi-party talks;
Reaffirming their commitment to the principles of partnership, equality and mutual respect andto the protection of civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights in their respective jurisdictions;
Have agreed as follows:



Here is Article 1 (v) of GFA:

(vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.


Here are some more articles:

31. Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly representatives and the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure effective co-ordination and input by Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU issues.


3. The Council to meet in different formats:
(i) in plenary format twice a year, with Northern Ireland representation led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and the Irish Government led by the Taoiseach;
(ii) in specific sectoral formats on a regular and frequent basis with each side represented by the appropriate Minister;
(iii) in an appropriate format to consider institutional or cross-sectoral matters
(including in relation to the EU) and to resolve disagreement.


17. The Council to consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework. Arrangements to be made to ensure that the views of the Council are taken into account and represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.


5. The BIC will exchange information, discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on co-operation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of the relevant Administrations. Suitable issues for early discussion in the BIC could include transport links, agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues, health issues, education issues and approaches to EU issues. Suitable arrangements to be made for practical co-operation on agreed policies.

Well, there is nothing that affects the citizenship issue. Look at Danish nationality law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_nationality_law

"Greenland joined the European Economic Community along with Denmark proper in 1973 but left in 1985. Although Greenland is not part of the EU, Danish citizens residing in Greenland are EU citizens"

Even those living in the Faroes can opt for EU passports.

As for the rest of the GFA, the provisions for discussions on EU are just that, provisions for discussions. They have no meaning.

blanch152 wrote: »

Who said that the UK will make up what is lost in EU subsidy?

It certainly seems to be a fantasy notion that I said that.

I didn't quote you did I? I was just referencing the UK's committment to make up the EU shortfall after Brexit.

A Little Pony wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

The Russians are here, hide under the bed! 


Wouldn't mind if it was ripped up, worst form of government in Europe and doesn't work, so it's not worth saving.

Ah, i see lets deploy the deflection tactics.

So are you disputing  the evidence of involvement or trying to side track it like Trump has been ?

The remain campaign lost by something like a million votes. Remain lost fair and square,

If there was outside interference then the result clearly wasn’t either fair or square.

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Brexit was influenced by the Russians and it swung a million people to vote for Brexit including myself (wish I had seen this propaganda at the time) then I can only thank Putin for helping us out of the EU.

Or, in other words, I couldn’t care less about what the will of the British people really is, merely that I got the result that I wanted and if that means siding with a foreign power over my own country to acheive it, then I am all for it.

A Little Pony wrote: »

The remain campaign lost by something like a million votes. Remain lost fair and square, the leave campaign had better orators during the debates and got the message across better, even if you disagreed with that message or thought it was lies, it still worked. Russia had nothing to do with why the leave campaign won the referendum. 

Sometimes when you lose it's good to bow out gracefully. If Brexit was influenced by the Russians and it swung a million people to vote for Brexit including myself (wish I had seen this propaganda at the time) then I can only thank Putin for helping us out of the EU.

Putin and Russia are enemies of the EU with hundreds of nuclear missiles pointed at British cities. Russia is also backing Scottish independence: RT have set up in Scotland and are posing as pro-EU to this end.
Putin is looking for the worst type of damage as a result of Brexit. He is looking for the British economy to collapse and the shock waves to hurt the EU with collatoral damage.

Could you please not say the 'Russians are coming' as if it is some kind of paranoia? The Russian Cyber war has been well established by European investigations with a body set up to counter it (UK is currently a member).

If you believe the Russians are not a threat then perhaps you were over exposed to their propaganda.

Incidently, they used 13,500 bots and trolls on Brexit. Some of these troll accounts were quoted and drove articles even in papers like the Guardian.

The messages were centred around immigration, the EU stealing the UKs sovereignty and other such sentiment aimed at stoking the emotional reaction of nationalism. If you were on SM you were exposed to it. The fact that you assume you weren't speaks volumes.

demfad wrote: »

The messages were centred around immigration, the EU stealing the UKs sovereignty and other such sentiment aimed at stoking the emotional reaction of nationalism. If you were on SM you were exposed to it. The fact that you assume you weren't speaks volumes.

Isn't that A Little Pony's main reasons for wanting out of the EU?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Isn't that A Little Pony's main reasons for wanting out of the EU?

I think a lot of the more fundamentalist unionists have seized upon Brexit as their last play in trying to lock in partition and reverse the soft unification of Ireland that a friction-less border and the GFA engendered.

It won't work, if anything it would bring forward a pro-UI vote.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Provide the evidence that a million people got influenced by Russian bots ordered on the instructions of Vladimir Putin to ruin Western elections so he can continue to under mine Western democracies and continue his destiny to rule the world.

Nobody said he intended to 'rule the world'. That is a strawman argument you are erecting. Putin wants to increase Russian influence and to stop the pan-western opposition to his plans to expand locally. He also is having great trouble with western sanctions against money laundering and other ilegal international crime. His regime is built on a pact with criminal oligarchs and he is in trouble if he cant provide them continued unregulated access to commit international crime.

It will be up to the powers that be to investigate, but investigate they must.
As many of the stories and fake news by these trolls made all the national publications including the Guardian its fair to say that most of the electorate were exposed to it in one way or another.

The commons committee on Fake news has already asked the SM giants for answers on Brexit.
There is an investigation into the source of Aaron Banks contributions into Leave.
There is an investigation into Leave.eu funding specifically re Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge were involved in work to ALL 5 leave campaigns.
Cambridge is being investigated in Trump-Russia for micro-targetting Russian fake news to US voters in swing states.
Cambridge contacted Wikileaks to ask could it diseminate the hacked Democratic emails for Wikileaks to aid TRump.
Farage, Banks and Wigmore are people of interest in Trump Russia.
Farage is known to be communicating and visiting Assange.
3 UK ministers were in contact with a KNOWN Russian spy Mifsud who was the handler for indicted Trump associate Papadopoulos.

Luckily the EU ref was advisory so the parlaiment can quickly undo the Brexit Bill. I dont see this going away especially as Theresa May herself is drawing attention to it.
There will have to be a second referendum so you wont be able to shout about democracy or whatever. Even if democracy was subverted in the first referendum. It wont be in referendum number 2.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Isn't that A Little Pony's main reasons for wanting out of the EU?

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think a lot of the more fundamentalist unionists have seized upon Brexit as their last play in trying to lock in partition and reverse the soft unification of Ireland that a friction-less border and the GFA engendered.

It won't work, if anything it would bring forward a pro-UI vote.

Thats true. Also the targetting was done by Cambridge analytica whose parent is SCL. SCL were used by militaries to destabilise enemy states (eg Afthghanistan) by using disinformation to fan nationalism.
Russia are expert here also. The bitter partisanship of the US and particularly Brexit UK has suprised many. Cambridge and Russia not though: extreme division is the symtoms of a successful campaign. Thats how it works.
Obviously, this type of propaganda works best and the already persuaded like far right Englanders or Unionists.
The nationalistic vitriol of sovereignty being stolen is a big symptom.
This appears massive overkill given EU only control 3% of UK laws.
UKIP are not able to achieve this alone. Yes RW media help, but the electoral expertise and microtargetting come from elsewhere.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A paper setting out the issues and potential problems for the GFA if Brexit goes ahead.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2017/583116/IPOL_BRI(2017)583116_EN.pdf

Very interesting and thank you very much for this. It appears to back up most of what I have said.

I note that the paper clearly states "That High Court in Belfast declared in October 2016 that it would be an over-statement to suggest that EU membership was a constitutional bulwark central to the Good Friday Agreement, which would be breached by notification of Article 50. This, the Court asserted, would be to ‘elevate ... [EU membership] over and beyond its true contextual position’.16 In its January 2017 verdict, the UK Supreme Court upheld the Belfast High Court position: the principle of consent for constitutional change contained in the Good Friday Agreement referred to whether Northern Ireland remained in the UK or unified with the rest of Ireland. It did not refer to EU membership or withdrawal."

I must look up these cases, as the Courts have clearly determined already that Brexit does not breach the GFA. We can close off this debate.

Then there is the suggestion:

"Brexit must surely require deletion and/or revision of the references to the EU within the Good Friday Agreement. As one of the signatories to the deal will no longer be part of the EU, it is unclear how the required ‘implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework’, as outlined in para. 17 of Strand Two, can continue."

Why is this so? There are plenty of defunct clauses in international agreements all over the world. References to the League of Nations or the European Community etc. abound in various international treaties, yet neither organisation continues to exist. The rational conclusion, involving the least disruption is that there is no further discussion on EU programmes because they no longer apply to Northern Ireland.

As for the ECHR, there is confirmation that it is a separate manner and has no relation to Brexit:

"A further aspect of UK withdrawal relates to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Convention is not an EU institution, but secession from the EU may embolden those in the UK Conservative Government seeking to replace adherence to the ECHR with a UK Bill of Rights."

A What if scenario if ever I saw one.

On citizenship, apart from saying that there has been an increase in applications, it does not say that Brexit affects the GFA provisions.

"One other important aspect of the Agreement is its confirmation of the right of anyone born on the island of Ireland to hold Irish, and thus EU, citizenship. The Agreement confirms (Constitutional Issues, para vi.) the right of Northern Ireland’s citizens to hold British and Irish citizenship and that this ‘would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland’. In the five months following the Brexit referendum vote, there were 24,849 applications for an Irish passport from Northern Ireland (a 63 per cent increase on the same period in 2015)."

So to sum up:

- The Courts have determined that the GFA does not require continued UK membership of the EU, therefore Brexit in and of itself does not breach the GFA
- Citizenship rights are not affected
- The ECHR is a completely separate issue
- References to the EU in the GFA are complicated, the paper suggests they may have to be renegotiated, alternatively, as I suggest, they are just defunct. Either way, it is hardly relevant as the EU programmes will no longer apply to Northern Ireland, so why would the two nations discuss them?
- There are political issues around the GFA


I can't disagree with any of that.

blanch152 wrote: »

Very interesting and thank you very much for this. It appears to back up most of what I have said.

I note that the paper clearly states "That High Court in Belfast declared in October 2016 that it would be an over-statement to suggest that EU membership was a constitutional bulwark central to the Good Friday Agreement, which would be breached by notification of Article 50. This, the Court asserted, would be to ‘elevate ... [EU membership] over and beyond its true contextual position’.16 In its January 2017 verdict, the UK Supreme Court upheld the Belfast High Court position: the principle of consent for constitutional change contained in the Good Friday Agreement referred to whether Northern Ireland remained in the UK or unified with the rest of Ireland. It did not refer to EU membership or withdrawal."

I must look up these cases, as the Courts have clearly determined already that Brexit does not breach the GFA. We can close off this debate.

Then there is the suggestion:

"Brexit must surely require deletion and/or revision of the references to the EU within the Good Friday Agreement. As one of the signatories to the deal will no longer be part of the EU, it is unclear how the required ‘implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework’, as outlined in para. 17 of Strand Two, can continue."

Why is this so? There are plenty of defunct clauses in international agreements all over the world. References to the League of Nations or the European Community etc. abound in various international treaties, yet neither organisation continues to exist. The rational conclusion, involving the least disruption is that there is no further discussion on EU programmes because they no longer apply to Northern Ireland.

As for the ECHR, there is confirmation that it is a separate manner and has no relation to Brexit:

"A further aspect of UK withdrawal relates to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Convention is not an EU institution, but secession from the EU may embolden those in the UK Conservative Government seeking to replace adherence to the ECHR with a UK Bill of Rights."

A What if scenario if ever I saw one.

On citizenship, apart from saying that there has been an increase in applications, it does not say that Brexit affects the GFA provisions.

"One other important aspect of the Agreement is its confirmation of the right of anyone born on the island of Ireland to hold Irish, and thus EU, citizenship. The Agreement confirms (Constitutional Issues, para vi.) the right of Northern Ireland’s citizens to hold British and Irish citizenship and that this ‘would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland’. In the five months following the Brexit referendum vote, there were 24,849 applications for an Irish passport from Northern Ireland (a 63 per cent increase on the same period in 2015)."

So to sum up:

- The Courts have determined that the GFA does not require continued UK membership of the EU, therefore Brexit in and of itself does not breach the GFA
- Citizenship rights are not affected
- The ECHR is a completely separate issue
- References to the EU in the GFA are complicated, the paper suggests they may have to be renegotiated, alternatively, as I suggest, they are just defunct. Either way, it is hardly relevant as the EU programmes will no longer apply to Northern Ireland, so why would the two nations discuss them?
- There are political issues around the GFA


I can't disagree with any of that.

Blanch just curious but why exactly do you get more agitated at the thought of a sea border than an Irish one? Do you not think the Republic should look after its own interests?