nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Rhineshark

kuro68k wrote: »

The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.

1. The EU
2. Remainers
3. Ireland
4. Corbyn

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

I read an interesting article on Irishnews.com suggesting Ireland should be reunited by rejoining the UK-I wondered if anyone else has read it?

What is your opinion on this?
Do you think we should?

Capt'n Midnight

RobMc59 wrote: »

I read an interesting article on Irishnews.com suggesting Ireland should be reunited by rejoining the UK-I wondered if anyone else has read it?

No. Wouldn't even waste my time. Early on in Brexit, Irish support for staying in the EU was measured at 82%, amongst full time students it was 99%.

Compare the economy North and South.
Or look at how much power the SNP have in Westminster.

Comparing the North and South.

Natural resources are similar, culture is similar unless you want to include the advantages of the Protestant work ethic. Before partition 90% of manufacturing used to be in the North.

Guess which side now has 90% of the manufacturing output ?
Guess which side has the most inward investment ?
Guess which side doesn't need a massive subsidy to stay afloat ?
Guess which side has an international voice ?

The main difference between North and South is whether Westminster or Dublin controls policy.

Or look at it the political future.
NI and Scotland between them elected a grand total of 3 MP's out of the 650 in the previous general election, from the three main parties that have been in government since 1707 . In 1918 in the last UK election down here the UK parties got no seats, and outside of Ulster there were only two Unionists elected.

Those numbers suggest that we'd have exactly the same level of influence and control as the SNP have in Westminster. That is to say none at all.

Capt'n Midnight

tuxy wrote: »

How about a European federation?

IMHO Scotland would be a good fit for the EFTA.

The UK is too big and divergent.

briany

fergiesfolly wrote: »

Who in their right mind would think that Ireland would ever have any interest in ever rejoining the UK under any circumstances.
It'll never happen.

Also would it not be madness for the UK not to errect a border between NI and ourselves in the event of a no deal brexit. We undoubtedly will. And they are leaving themselves open to all sorts of problems if they don't.

If Ireland, under EU and WTO pressure, were to put up border infrastructure, the UK would probably do it the day after, under the guise of, "Ah, well, that's that talk about the Good Friday Agreement out the window. Might as well put up a border ourselves, now."

Nate--IRL--

briany wrote: »

If Ireland, under EU and WTO pressure...

Emm - not pressure, a legal obligation as part of Single market membership. The Border is not in question in the event of a hard Brexit. Ireland will enforce a border. So will the UK.

There may be optics involved, as mentioned previously.

We could of course leave the Single market and customs union..... no need for a border then. We'd just have to hope the UK also plays ball in such a scenario, and not **** us over....... :pac:

Nate

mickoneill31

briany wrote: »

If Ireland, under EU and WTO pressure, were to put up border infrastructure, the UK would probably do it the day after, under the guise of, "Ah, well, that's that talk about the Good Friday Agreement out the window. Might as well put up a border ourselves, now."

What's this EU and WTO pressure? We're in the EU, single market and customs union.

If we don't want a border with the UK and the UK leaves those three items then we just have to do that too. Simple. Fortunately, we're not that stupid.

Saying there's pressue to control your border with a third country is a bit childish. It's what a country has to do.
We don't want a border but there's no choice if the UK goes mental. Blaming the EU won't really work over here. We haven't been indoctrinated by the UK media against the EU for the last 20 years. The UK can say what they want, only hard line Torys will think they can blame Ireland or the EU.

Edit: Or what Nate said

I was typing my reply when he posted his.

An Ciarraioch

SNIP. Don't paste comedy videos here please.

Infini

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Emm - not pressure, a legal obligation as part of Single market membership. The Border is not in question in the event of a hard Brexit. Ireland will enforce a border. So will the UK.

There may be optics involved, as mentioned previously.

I would say though that if the brinksmanship and disorganised stupidity of the British establisment were to lead to a no deal crashout then even if we were to have to erect temporary border controls thats all they would be. The Brits would still need trade agreements for trade and such and if they wished to trade with the EU then we would be in the position to demand significant concessions from them to sort the border issue. Could definately see a border poll being something to come about if NI is hammered hard enough and a UI ultimately removes the problem from this island.

Nate--IRL--

Infini wrote: »

I would say though that if the brinksmanship and disorganised stupidity of the British establisment were to lead to a no deal crashout then even if we were to have to erect temporary border controls thats all they would be. The Brits would still need trade agreements for trade and such and if they wished to trade with the EU then we would be in the position to demand significant concessions from them to sort the border issue. Could definately see a border poll being something to come about if NI is hammered hard enough and a UI ultimately removes the problem from this island.

Temporary arrangements have a habit of sticking around

The UK will still be able to trade. Trade will not stop. However it will be on less favourable terms for both sides.

Given the political vacuum during a no-deal scenario in Britain, I'd expect it would be many years before a new UK-EU agreement comes about. Even longer for one that obviates the need for a border.

Nate

Rain Ascending

judeboy101 wrote: »

Could take years for wto to pull the lead out and punish us or uk for no customs border. The EU would , however, have no problem erecting customs and tariff collecting on every vehicle and person leaving this isle for mainland europe.brits wouldn't care less if that happened.

Hmm, I've seen this scenario suggested a few times, primarily in in fora with a much stronger pro-Brexit representation than here. Honestly, given the strength of EU support for Ireland to date, I find it politically implausible. But, let's leave that aside for a minute and look at it from a legal perspective.

The idea that the EU has the legal power to force countries like France and Belgium to enforce border controls with Ireland, i.e. to treat Ireland as if it was outside the SM and/or the CU, while Ireland is still is a full member of the EU, is very surprising to me. Can you point to where you believe the EU has these powers and the mechanism for enacting them? I'll take any reputable source for starters.

A more likely, if still implausible, hard-deal Brexit scenario is one where
(a) The Irish government doesn't put in place any controls on the North Ireland border.
(b) The Commission issues warnings to the government.
(c) The Irish government very slowly starts to implement controls.
(d) The Commission eventually looses patience and takes the Irish government to the ECJ.
(e) The ECJ issues a judgement.
The point is it would take at least a couple of years to get to stage (e) where the Irish government would have to deal with a possible negative judgement from the ECJ. In the meantime, under this very strict approach by the European Commission, the French have gummed up Dover and the Channel Tunnel grinding major chunks of British manufacturing industry and agriculture to a halt, etc., etc.

Bottom line: As rough as things could get at the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, the dynamics on the UK-French border will be much faster.

Charles Babbage

A proportionate response by the EU would be to second experienced customs officials from places like Germany and Austria to Ireland, so that a good impression of control could be maintained without delay. But make no great effort to speed things up on the Channel.

In reality, if the British wanted a no deal with mitigation then they would simply leave the NI backstop alone, they need their staff in GB in that case, not in NI.

Peregrinus

Charles Babbage wrote: »

A proportionate response by the EU would be to second experienced customs officials from places like Germany and Austria to Ireland, so that a good impression of control could be maintained without delay. But make no great effort to speed things up on the Channel.

In reality, if the British wanted a no deal with mitigation then they would simply leave the NI backstop alone, they need their staff in GB in that case, not in NI.

The EU don't post customs officials; they don't have any to post. It's possible that Ireland might ask other countries for help, and that might include asking for the temporary secondment of staff from other countries but that would be a bilateral arrangement between Ireland and the countries concerned; not something the EU could simply decide on. But, honestly, I think even that is wildly unlikely.

More likely is that, if border controls do become necessary, it will take some time to work out exactly what controls are needed, and some more time to get those controls up to speed. Neither side will rush to be the first to erect controls, but both sides will need to.

As Infini points out in post #7186, a crash-out Brexit is not a stable situation, and I think the Irish government's hope is that, if it does happen, domestic pressures in the UK will bring them back to the negotiating table before it becomes necessary to set up extensive border controls in Ireland.

judeboy101

Can you point to where you believe the EU has these powers and the mechanism for enacting them? I'll take any reputable source for starters.

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en

They can stop goods and can stop people bringing goods. While this has only been used on the continent, it applies to any internal EU border, not specifically shengen.

Calina

judeboy101 wrote: »

Can you point to where you believe the EU has these powers and the mechanism for enacting them? I'll take any reputable source for starters.

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en

They can stop goods and can stop people bringing goods. While this has only been used on the continent, it applies to any internal EU border, not specifically shengen.

It is the Schengen Border Code. How is it not specifically Schengen?

Also there are a bunch of conditions linked to it.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Can you point to where you believe the EU has these powers and the mechanism for enacting them? I'll take any reputable source for starters.

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/reintroduction-border-control_en

They can stop goods and can stop people bringing goods. While this has only been used on the continent, it applies to any internal EU border, not specifically shengen.

That allows individual Member States who participate in Schengen to reintroduce border controls, for their own domestic purposes. It doesn't provide any basis for the EU to direct or require them to do so for the purposes of the Union. It isn't really a suitable mechanism for dealing with the situation which would arise were the UK to leave without an agreed arrangement for keeping the Irish border open.

If that situation does arise, the EU's preferred course will not be that there should be controls on trade between Ireland and other Member States , but that Ireland should operate controls on trade with the UK. And, painful though it would be, that will also be the preference of the Irish government. I do think there'll be understanding at the EU level of the political and practical difficulties Ireland will face, so border controls may be slow to be rolled out in full, and for quite some time they may be partial or cobbled-together. But, in this situation, sooner or later there will be Irl/UK border controls.

But the Irish government will be playing for "later", and hoping that the other dire consequences of a no-deal Brexit will bring the UK to its senses and back to the negotiating table before full-on border controls have to be introduced.

RobMc59

Tell me how wrote: »

What is your opinion on this?
Do you think we should?

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

mickoneill31

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

I think the antics of the UK government over the last couple of years means that nobody is going to trust them in any negotiations like that for a fair while.

You mention sovereignty. It was a component of the Brexit campaign. They didnt understand it when they were part of the EU. Some people (including members of Parliament) still think they didn't have control over their own laws when they were in the EU.
I don't think they'd be bothered about Irish sovereignty if we (for some magical reason) joined up with them.

cml387

Is it possible that there will be no vote next Tuesday?
If the whips feel it's a hopeless task, would it be better to give up.
May can go back to Brussels saying I can't do this, you'll have to come up with a better deal.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

I'm not sure how this would be a "compromise". Ireland rejoining the UK involves Ireland leaving the EU (unless this is part of a larger deal in which the UK abandons Brexit).

Akrasia

cml387 wrote: »

Is it possible that there will be no vote next Tuesday?
If the whips feel it's a hopeless task, would it be better to give up.
May can go back to Brussels saying I can't do this, you'll have to come up with a better deal.

if she goes back to Brussels with no ideas and no domestic support she'll be sent packing in no uncertain terms.

The EU will agree to an extension for a 2nd referendum. Or possibly an extension for new terms that are in effect a softer brexit than the one May wants, but there is zero chance that they'll re-negotiate with May based on her inability to get this deal through her own parliament.

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

Is it possible that there will be no vote next Tuesday?
If the whips feel it's a hopeless task, would it be better to give up.
May can go back to Brussels saying I can't do this, you'll have to come up with a better deal.

Why would Brussels do that? Their priorities, negotiating objectives, etc will nto have changed.

Cosmetic tweaks to the deal might be possible to help get it over the line, but any substantive change would have to be a change which makes it more attractive to the EU than it already is - so, a softer Brexit, not a harder one. And how is May going to get that through the Commons?

Calina

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

The UK does not do joint sovereignty. No one watching the current events should be naive enough to trust them until devolution for England happens and proportional representation is implemented. Also, Ireland is a republic. I do not want a monarch as head of state.

Not a good idea.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

My 1st thought was it wouldn't appeal to people in Ireland but if it was a joint venture between both governments ,perhaps giving joint soveignty which would show Ireland that the UK wants a genuine solution and is willing to compromise then yes,I think it could be a good idea.

Over 80% of us would have to change our desire to be in the EU in order to go over what we think is a cliff with the UK? How do you propose making sense of that one?

cml387

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why would Brussels do that? Their priorities, negotiating objectives, etc will nto have changed.

Cosmetic tweaks to the deal might be possible to help get it over the line, but any substantive change would have to be a change which makes it more attractive to the EU than it already is - so, a softer Brexit, not a harder one. And how is May going to get that through the Commons?

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

Peregrinus

cml387 wrote: »

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

Sure, May might decide not to put the deal to a vote. But what will her next step be? Certainly not to go back to Brussels to ask them to give up something in the current deal; that would certainly lead to rejection and humiliation, and why would she think that would help her situation any?

So she's going to have to find a different next step. This might be:

(a) resign, since she clearly doesn't command the support of Parliament - the deal she negotiated on the UK's behalf is utterly unacceptable to them; or

(b) try to go over the heads of MPs by putting the deal to the people in a referendum. Problem here is that she needs Parliament to pass legislation to hold the referendum. Other problem is that she has very firmly ruled out another referendum, so she's be seen as weak, and having lost control; or

(c) commit to a no-deal crash-out Brexit. Again, she'd be seen as weak and not in control, and simply pretending that the only course open to her is one actually her preference. Plus, no-deal Brexit would be an unmitigated disaster for the UK, in every way; while there is currently no majority in the House of Commons for any particular form of Brexit, the form that enjoys least support, for good reason, is no-deal Brexit. Only lunatics advocate this sincerely.

If May concludes that the deal she negotiates is not only not going to get through the Commons, but in fact is so unpopular that she cannot even put it to the Commons because of the crushing majority by which it would be rejected, I honestly think she has to resign. I don't she how even May, whose superpower is clinging to office like a limpet, can carry on in that situation.

kuro68k

cml387 wrote: »

It just seems to me that staring down the face of +100 vote defeat, it would be better from the government's point of view not to go there at all. The Charge Of The Light Brigade made more sense.

May has a nasty habit of somehow getting these things through. She will be hoping she can threaten her MPs with a general election and whip them into voting for her deal.

It's her last chance to secure a legacy that isn't utter failure, so she won't back down.

cml387

The Telegraph has leaked opinion of Ollie Robbins, that he thinks the deal is bad because of the backstop.

There is such a growing, visceral dislike of the Withdrawal agreement among MP's that it is a dead deal.

God knows what happens next.

Zubeneschamali

I think she will put it to a vote, lose, and cling on.

Several things could happen - as No Deal looms, the City could go into meltdown; this might encourage Remainers to back the deal instead of Chaos.

Or she might threaten a referendum with this deal or No brexit, and the Brexiteers might suddenly like this deal more.

Or she might threaten an election, and facing defeat the Tories might agree to pass the WA and fight about the Future Relationship later.

Or with no consensus in Parliament, she might beg the EU to extend A50 or withdraw it temporarily.

She might very well look weak doing these things, but she would be weak in #10 and no-one wants her job until this is settled one way or another, so I think she is safe for now.

She needs another 80 days in office to move up to #36, and 180 to catch Gordon Brown.

cml387

Maybe the referendum would be between this deal or no deal.

May could say, the will of the people is still being upheld in that the vote to leave the EU is being followed up, now it's just the terms to be decided.

Bigus

It might be May's clever plot to stay in the EU after all , we've been speculating here since article 50 was invoked what the hell was the logic , perhaps she knew what she was doing all along as a remainer. No deal , no Brexit , crashing out shoved off the table next week by consensus ?